Justice Scalia Writes Guide for Interpreting the Law

Summary

In this insightful interview, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discusses his philosophy of textualism and originalism with Margaret Warner. Scalia emphasizes the importance of interpreting legal texts based on their original meaning and criticizes evolving interpretations. He also addresses misconceptions about strict constructionism and defends the idea that the Constitution should not be subject to judicial evolution, instead relying on the amendment process for updates. The conversation touches on the application of the Constitution to modern issues like the death penalty and gun control, and Scalia's dissenting opinion on the Obama health care reform act.

Takeaways

• 📚 Justice Antonin Scalia co-authored a book titled 'Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts' with lexicographer Bryan Garner, focusing on textualism and originalism in legal interpretation.
• 👨‍⚖️ Scalia emphasizes the importance of textualism, which involves interpreting legal texts based on their literal wording, and originalism, which considers the meaning of the text at the time it was adopted.
• 📈 The book is divided into two parts: one discussing Scalia and Garner's judicial philosophies, and the other providing practical guidance on how to apply textualism in legal interpretation.
• 🔍 Scalia criticizes the lack of teaching of textualism in law schools, suggesting that even those who claim to be textualists often do not know how to apply it effectively.
• 🚫 He distinguishes between textualism and strict constructionism, arguing that the latter can lead to misinterpretations of legal texts, such as the First Amendment.
• 📖 Scalia addresses critiques like that of retired Justice David Souter, who argued that the Constitution needs to evolve over time, by stating that the Constitution is meant to be amended, not interpreted to fit modern times by the courts.
• 🏛️ Scalia argues that the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, limits majority rule by protecting individual rights, and that courts should not expand these rights beyond their original intent.
• 💉 On the death penalty, Scalia believes it was not considered cruel and unusual punishment at the time of the Eighth Amendment, and thus should not be declared unconstitutional by the courts.
• 🔫 Regarding the Second Amendment, Scalia suggests that while certain restrictions on bearing arms are permissible, the extent of these restrictions will be determined in future cases.
• 🏥 Scalia disagrees with Chief Justice Roberts' interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, arguing that Roberts did not properly apply textualism in his decision to uphold the law under the tax power.
• 🤝 Despite disagreements on specific cases, Scalia dismisses rumors of a rift between himself and other justices, emphasizing that such conflicts are not typical in the court.

Q & A

What is the main focus of Justice Antonin Scalia's book 'Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts'?

The book, co-authored with lexicographer Bryan Garner, outlines nearly 60 canons of interpretation for judges to follow and dismisses another 13 notions as wrong-headed. It is divided into two parts: one expressing Scalia's philosophy of judging and the other providing a how-to guide for textualists.

What is Justice Scalia's stance on textualism and originalism in legal interpretation?

Justice Scalia is a proponent of textualism and originalism, which involves using the text of the law and giving it the meaning it had when it was adopted, rather than interpreting it in a way that evolves with time.

Why did Justice Scalia feel the need to write 'Reading Law' despite his extensive work on the subject?

Scalia felt that while he had written and spoken on the subject, he had never done so in the depth that this book provides. He wanted to provide a comprehensive guide for judges on how to apply textualism and originalism in their rulings.

What is the difference between textualism and strict constructionism according to Justice Scalia?

Textualism involves interpreting the law based on the text itself, while strict constructionism can lead to misinterpretations by taking the text too literally. Scalia argues that strict constructionism gives a bad name to textualism by potentially allowing for absurd interpretations.

How does Justice Scalia respond to critiques that his approach to legal interpretation has a tenuous connection to reality?

Scalia argues that the Constitution does not need to evolve over time, as it contains provisions for amendment. He believes that leaving it up to the courts to evolve the Constitution limits the scope of democratic self-government.

What is Justice Scalia's view on the death penalty in relation to the Eighth Amendment?

Scalia believes that the death penalty is not proscribed by the Eighth Amendment because it was practiced at the time the amendment was adopted. He suggests that if society no longer wants the death penalty, it should pass laws to abolish it, rather than relying on the courts.

How does Justice Scalia interpret the Second Amendment in relation to modern weaponry?

Scalia suggests that while the Second Amendment allows for the bearing of arms, it does not mean that everyone can carry any weapon they want. He points out that certain traditional restrictions on bearing arms can be enforced, and the specifics will be decided in future cases.

What was Justice Scalia's position in the Obama health care reform act decision?

Scalia dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that he did not believe the law was a proper application of textualism. He disagreed with Justice Roberts' interpretation of the law under the government's power of tax.

How does Justice Scalia address the rumors of a rift between him and Chief Justice Roberts?

Scalia dismisses the rumors as silly and childish, stating that while they may disagree on certain cases, it does not mean they are enemies or have a rift.

What does Justice Scalia mean when he says he 'fears he may have broken some of his own rules'?

Scalia is referring to the possibility that he may have unintentionally not followed his own canons of interpretation in some cases. He wants to ensure that people understand that he did not intentionally deviate from his principles.