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 Kissssss by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Thirteen Alabama Ghosts and Jeffrey by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Surviving Spanish Conquest by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Haints by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Woodland Period Systematics in the Middle Ohio Valley by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book To Raise Up the Man Farthest Down by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Boundary Conditions by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book The Language of Public Administration by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Method and Theory in American Archaeology by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Wings of Gold by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Banning Queer Blood by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Without Sympathy or Enthusiasm by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book The Looking-Glass by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Rivers of History by Catherine L. Langford
Cover of the book Glory Hole 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