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 Knowing the Suffering of Others by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Nationalizing a Borderland by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Ecoviews by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Mark Twain by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book China Marine by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Another Governess / The Least Blacksmith by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Through the Open Door by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Politics and Welfare in Birmingham, 1900–1975 by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Girl Zoo by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Remaining Chickasaw in Indian Territory, 1830s-1907 by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Her Contemporaries by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Christian Reconstruction by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Osceola's Legacy 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