Scalia v. Scalia

Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation

Nonfiction, Reference & Language, Language Arts, Public Speaking, Rhetoric, Law, Constitutional
Cover of the book Scalia v. Scalia by Catherine L. Langford, University of Alabama Press
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Catherine L. Langford ISBN: 9780817391607
Publisher: University of Alabama Press Publication: January 9, 2018
Imprint: University Alabama Press Language: English
Author: Catherine L. Langford
ISBN: 9780817391607
Publisher: University of Alabama Press
Publication: January 9, 2018
Imprint: University Alabama Press
Language: English

An analysis of the discrepancy between the ways Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued the Constitution should be interpreted versus how he actually interpreted the law

Antonin Scalia is considered one of the most controversial justices to have been on the United States Supreme Court. A vocal advocate of textualist interpretation, Justice Scalia argued that the Constitution means only what it says and that interpretations of the document should be confined strictly to the directives supplied therein. This narrow form of constitutional interpretation, which limits constitutional meaning to the written text of the Constitution, is known as textualism.
 
*Scalia v. Scalia:*Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation examines Scalia’s discussions of textualism in his speeches, extrajudicial writings, and judicial opinions. Throughout his writings, Scalia argues textualism is the only acceptable form of constitutional interpretation. Yet Scalia does not clearly define his textualism, nor does he always rely upon textualism to the exclusion of other interpretive means.
 
Scalia is seen as the standard bearer for textualism. But when textualism fails to support his ideological aims (as in cases that pertain to states’ rights or separation of powers), Scalia reverts to other forms of argumentation. Langford analyzes Scalia’s opinions in a clear area of law, the cruel and unusual punishment clause; a contested area of law, the free exercise and establishment cases; and a silent area of law, abortion. Through her analysis, Langford shows that Scalia uses rhetorical strategies beyond those of a textualist approach, concluding that Scalia is an opportunistic textualist and that textualism is as rhetorical as any other form of judicial interpretation.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

An analysis of the discrepancy between the ways Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued the Constitution should be interpreted versus how he actually interpreted the law

Antonin Scalia is considered one of the most controversial justices to have been on the United States Supreme Court. A vocal advocate of textualist interpretation, Justice Scalia argued that the Constitution means only what it says and that interpretations of the document should be confined strictly to the directives supplied therein. This narrow form of constitutional interpretation, which limits constitutional meaning to the written text of the Constitution, is known as textualism.
 
*Scalia v. Scalia:*Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation examines Scalia’s discussions of textualism in his speeches, extrajudicial writings, and judicial opinions. Throughout his writings, Scalia argues textualism is the only acceptable form of constitutional interpretation. Yet Scalia does not clearly define his textualism, nor does he always rely upon textualism to the exclusion of other interpretive means.
 
Scalia is seen as the standard bearer for textualism. But when textualism fails to support his ideological aims (as in cases that pertain to states’ rights or separation of powers), Scalia reverts to other forms of argumentation. Langford analyzes Scalia’s opinions in a clear area of law, the cruel and unusual punishment clause; a contested area of law, the free exercise and establishment cases; and a silent area of law, abortion. Through her analysis, Langford shows that Scalia uses rhetorical strategies beyond those of a textualist approach, concluding that Scalia is an opportunistic textualist and that textualism is as rhetorical as any other form of judicial interpretation.

More books from University of Alabama Press

Cover of the book Victorian Domesticity by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book The Village on the Plain by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Mythography by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book 1865 Alabama by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book In Defense of Politics in Public Administration by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book From Civil War to Civil Rights, Alabama 1860–1960 by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Modern Organization by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Germany in Central America by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book The Myth of Ephraim Tutt by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Stubborn Poetries by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Nationalizing a Borderland by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Imperfect Fit by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Cultural Forests of the Amazon by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Recollections of War Times by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Urbanism in the Preindustrial World by Catherine L. Langford
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy