A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law: Federal Courts and the Law

Front Cover
Princeton University Press, Jul 27, 1998 - Law - 176 pages
23 Reviews

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 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing 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.

In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the "strict constructionism" that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly "smuggle" in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals.

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.


What people are saying - Write a review

User ratings

5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star

Review: A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law

User Review  - Shea Henning - Goodreads

Ah, Scalia. I have such conflicted feelings towards this Supreme Court Justice. On one hand, I find myself disagreeing with multiple decisions and I loathe his method of interpretation. However, this ... Read full review

Review: A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law

User Review  - Dan Cotter - Goodreads

Very entertaining set of essays. Scalia witted his thoughts, a number of others try to poke holes, and he responds. Interesting because over time his method has changed (see A Court of One) and this book is from late 1990's. Worthwhile read. Read full review

All 16 reviews »

Selected pages

Common terms and phrases

About the author (1998)

Antonin Scalia has been an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1986. Prior to that time, he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Bibliographic information