Subscribe to posts. Read Download. Hoye II - Robert W. Artigo Read Download. Beck Read Download. Klugh Read Download. BY: Mark Hyman. BY: Angela Y. BY: Jeanette Elisabeth Menter. Simon Read Download. Lovecraft Tales of Horror - H. Lovecraft Read Download. Ross Read Download. Hammer Read Download. Stern Read Download. Rose Read Download. Hay Read Download. Great introduction. Read this book before law school, and it provided a framework that I was able to use during law school to not only understand the Constitution, but also interpret law generally.
I've had this on my "to read" shelf since , when it came out, but was always put off by the price. It suggests that there is real demand for this book, so I used some gift cards on it, and I wasn't disappointed. This is mostly a textbook you could use in a linguistics class that was focused on semantics.
Scalia and Garner argue that when we talk about the judiciary as "interpreting the law," we are really talking abo This book I read over a period of several months, putting it down for several months in the middle, and then surging to a finish the last week or two. It's one of those projects I picked up because of my enduring interest in the technicalities of the English language and because I'm a fan of Bryan A.
Garner in particular, who mentioned the book in the published version of his interview with David Foster Wallace. I'm not a lawyer. Most of what I know about law before reading this book I learned fr This book collects in a single volume dozens of rules of interpretation for both statutes and contracts. Because it is written by Bryan Garner the current authority on clear and compelling legal writing and Justice Antonin Scalia hands down, the author of the most entertaining Supreme Court opinions , the book is very readable.
I agree with almost every point that is made in this book. The only thing I disagree with -- and my disagreement is quite strong -- is that the goal of interpretation, Authors argue that judge-made common law gave coherence to the law when there were few statutes. Now that democratically enacted ordinances, statutes, and rules abound, "the judge's principal function is to give those texts their fair meaning.
The book At first, I thought this would be an elaborate attempt to taunt the illiterate, something on the order of, "we made you a self help book on how to read. The authors looked to compile methods on resolving textual ambiguity, and, despite there being some controversy over time about how to do so in certain cases, largely give some concept of how judges and courts might do so without looking beyond statutory How do you interpret the law? Well, by reading the text and interpreting its words according to how they were understood when the law was created.
This sounds rather obvious, but sadly it is not in American constitutional law. Scalia and Garner lay out their textualist philosophy with seventy 'canons' of interpretation. Many of these are rather technical e. Lay readers can read th Reading Law is a very engaging and well written book, even if I, unsurprisingly, did not agree with all the authors' conclusions.
The authors generally devote only a few pages to each canon, which allows for easy pacing. Although legal knowledge is not required to understand the book, the authors clearly assume that the reader has some familiarity with the law and do not explain a substantial number of the common law legal principles mentioned in the book. While its excoriation of purposivism do Well written, as one would expect from Scalia and Garner, and fairly persuasive.
A solid entry in the debate about how to interpret statutes. However, I found the authors' tendency to cite to other texts they had written as support for their arguments rather off-putting. Glad I read it, and I'll keep it handy to refer to, but I don't see it as definitive.
Scalia's explanation of what he thinks he ought to be doing when he interprets statutes. I enjoyed this, both because it gave me more insight as to what the debate about textualism and originalism they're not the same! People look at you oddly when you're reading a book like this, and they look at you like you're out of your mind when you're reading a book like this and chuckling out loud.
It's not my fault. Blame my parents, friends, and professors. They made me what I've become. This book discusses Justice Scalias jurisprudence on key areas of law, as well as how that jurisprudence could be seen to have influenced the Courts approach to these subject matters.
This book also provides an overview of the Supreme Courts procedural rules and requirements when the Court is staffed with less than nine members; and answers to frequently asked legal questions about filling Supreme Court vacancies. Especially illuminating to anyone who wants to unlock the mystery of why Ginsburg admired Scalia—or who wants to get a sense of where the Supreme Court may be headed.
The Essential Scalia presents Justice Scalia on his own terms, allowing readers to understand the reasoning and insights that made him one of the most consequential jurists in American history.
Known for his forceful intellect and remarkable wit, Scalia mastered the art of writing in a way that both educated and entertained. This compendium addresses the hot-button issues of the times, from abortion and the right to bear arms to marriage, free speech, religious liberty, and so much more.
Not only is there substantial agreement between these two men in the areas of constitutional interpretation, federalism, separation of powers, executive and judicial power, but the two men also have similar temperaments: bold, decisive, and principled. By examining the congruence in thought between Hamilton and Scalia, it is hoped that a better and deeper understanding of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence will be achieved. While an abundance of scholarship has been written on Justice Scalia, no one has systematically examined his political philosophy.
Citing Scalia's use of judicial review to check legislative power and his attempts to limit several types of individual rights developed during the Warren and Burger courts, the authors conclude that Scalia's decisions reflect an effort to create a post-Carolene Products jurisprudence and to form a new pattern of assumptions regarding the role of the Supreme Court in. Is a burrito a sandwich? Is a corporation entitled to personal privacy? If you trade a gun for drugs, are you using a gun in a drug transaction?
The authors grapple with these and dozens of equally curious questions while explaining the most principled, lucid, and reliable techniques for deriving meaning from authoritative texts.
0コメント