Normal view MARC view ISBD view

A Matter of Interpretation : Federal Courts and the Law.

By: Scalia, Antonin.
Contributor(s): Gutmann, Amy.
Material type: TextTextSeries: eBooks on Demand.The University Center for Human Values Ser: Publisher: Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2018Copyright date: ©2018Edition: New Edition.Description: 1 online resource (198 pages).Content type: text Media type: computer Carrier type: online resourceISBN: 9781400882953.Subject(s): Constitutional law-United States | Judge-made law-United States | Law-United States-Interpretation and constructionGenre/Form: Electronic books.Additional physical formats: Print version:: A Matter of Interpretation : Federal Courts and the LawDDC classification: 347.7/32/34 Online resources: Click here to view this ebook.
Contents:
Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction to the New Edition -- Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws -- Comment -- Comment -- Comment -- Comment -- Response -- Afterword to the New Edition -- Contributors -- Index.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Item type Current location Call number URL Status Date due Barcode
Electronic Book UT Tyler Online
Online
KF4552 .S335 2018 (Browse shelf) https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uttyler/detail.action?docID=4927072 Available EBC4927072

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction to the New Edition -- Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws -- Comment -- Comment -- Comment -- Comment -- Response -- Afterword to the New Edition -- Contributors -- Index.

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Reviews provided by Syndetics

Library Journal Review

How should judges interpret statutory and constitutional law? Gutmann (politics, Princeton; Democracy and Disagreement, LJ 12/15/96) has edited an admirable work focusing on the relationship of the federal courts in interpreting the law. Supreme Court Justice Scalia's essay elaborates on his philosophy of textualism, an approach that eschews legislative intention in favor of focusing on the original meaning of the text to be interpreted. He applies this principle to constitutional law, arguing that we should concentrate on the Constitution's original meaning. Following this essay are brief comments by noted legal scholars Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Lawrence Tribe, and Gordon Wood. It's deceptively easy to simplify Justice Scalia's ideas to a single sentence, as Gutmann does in her preface: "laws mean what they actually say, not what legislators intended them to say but did not write into the law's text." But the debates over the manner of interpreting legal texts have been held since the very beginning of our constitutional government. This collection certainly isn't the final word, but it offers an excellent starting place. For academic collections.‘Jerry E. Stephens, U.S. Court of Appeals Lib., Oklahoma City (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

CHOICE Review

Scalia offers lawyers and "all thoughtful Americans who share our national obsession with the law" the text of his lecture "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws." His views, well known to students of the Supreme Court, are briefly if not always succinctly outlined under familiar rubrics: judge-made law, statutory interpretation, textualism or "reasonable construction," and a tirade against "The Living Constitution." Textualism--adherence to the letter and if possible the meaning of statutes and a rejection of the US Constitution as a flexible, growing charter of republican liberty--constitute the core of Scalia's remarks. His textualist brief against the Living Constitution builds around the requirement that "democracy" be the obligatory goal and procedure of faithful interpreters of the Constitution (although "democracy" is a term foreign to the Constitution or any of its amendments.) Four commentators contest Scalia's views with indifferent success, mainly because their views are not fully engaged or are met with "I do not agree," "I do not believe that," and "I disagree," judicial closures that do not aid the understanding of those who share "our national obsession with the law." Recommended for readers interested in how a Justice works and how some lawyers try to cope. L. Weinstein; Smith College

Author notes provided by Syndetics

Antonin Scalia, born in Trenton, New Jersey, was an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He served until his death in 2016. He was te first Italian-American justice. He was known for his conservative views and strong defense of the executive branch, believing the President of the United States should be paramount in most areas. In many cases, he wrote differing opinions than the court majority, and used scathing language to get his point across. (Bowker Author Biography)

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.