A Matter of Interpretation

Federal Courts and the Law

De: Antonin Scalia, Amy Gutmann - editor foreword

Narrado por: Christopher Grove

Duración: 6 h y 10 m

Resumen del Editor

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 Tantor

In Depth

This book was of a more scholarly nature then all of the hundreds of recordings I have listened to in the past. That is not to complain, but to warn the prospective listeners it requires much more effort to listen.

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.

Edifying Layout of Prevailing Interpretive Theory

As a simple voting citizen this book helped me to see a, little more clearly, the conflicts in governmental philosophy as implemented through judicial action.

Waste

Do not waste your time. Argument on the left is pathetic. One argues that Scalia should read the constitution to the end!!