Books > Law > Jurisprudence & general issues > Jurisprudence & philosophy of law
|
Buy Now
A Matter of Interpretation - Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition (Paperback, Revised edition)
Loot Price: R389
Discovery Miles 3 890
You Save: R76
(16%)
|
|
A Matter of Interpretation - Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition (Paperback, Revised edition)
(sign in to rate)
List price R465
Loot Price R389
Discovery Miles 3 890
You Save R76 (16%)
Expected to ship within 10 - 15 working days
|
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. 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.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
You might also like..
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.