
A Matter of Interpretation
Federal Courts and the Law
Failed to add items
Add to Cart failed.
Add to Wish List failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
$0.00 for first 30 days
Buy for $17.19
-
Narrated by:
-
Christopher Grove
We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim - "[D]istinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal - good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.
This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. In the spirit of debate, Justice Scalia responds to these critics.
Featuring a new foreword that discusses Scalia's impact, jurisprudence, and legacy, this witty and trenchant exchange illuminates the brilliance of one of the most influential legal minds of our time.
©1997, 2018 Princeton University Press (P)2020 TantorListeners also enjoyed...




















People who viewed this also viewed...


















Edifying Layout of Prevailing Interpretive Theory
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Its content is not only an erudite topic for one of our most well know justices, but also quite germane in today’s politically-charged atmosphere surrounding the debate of Constitutional originalist interpretation (where Scalia was entrenched) and the non-originalists, so-called “living” proponents.
The author did a remarkable job of gathering sufficient remarks (essays) of contrast to Scalia’s body of work, although I felt it tilted the scales to the liberal side too much.
One other thing it took me a moment to understand is the author’s use of Democratic vs democratic. The first time he referred to Scalia as a democratic judge, it took me a moment to realize he was using the lowercase “d”!
I will be reading it again to listen to all the arguments and their details.
In Depth
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Deeper and denser but understandable
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Waste
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Detailed review of book
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.