308
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 7:
Line 7: − +
Undo revision 441777 by Special:Contributions/Tylerderden (User talk:Tylerderden)
Justice Scalia embraces a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "original meaning" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. He opposes speculation about the "intent" of the drafters or supporters of language that the Court must interpret. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasizes the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>
Justice Scalia embraces a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "original meaning" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. He opposes speculation about the "intent" of the drafters or supporters of language that the Court must interpret. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasizes the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>
Many of Scalia's opinions display an attention to the need for the Court to be predictable to lawmakers. Yet his actions seem to disregard the basic rule of law in so many of his rulings. His administrative opinions express a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines. His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often point out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end. But of course, there is no way anyone who disagrees with him could possibly be right. Of course, like his ruling today, there is no way Indiana Republicans sought to disenfranchise poor Democratic voters. That would be impossible.
Many of Scalia's opinions display an attention to the need for the Court to be predictable to lawmakers. His administrative opinions express a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines. His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often point out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end.
== Opinions ==
== Opinions ==