113,064 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Scalia v. Scalia ::opportunistic textualism in constitutional interpretation /
No full textScalia 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
Scalia v. Ginsburg
No full textThis thesis looks to find elements that contributed to jurisprudence of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, and explores the consequences of such jurisprudence. To discover such elements, this thesis first critically examines the early life, education, and careers experienced by Scalia and Ginsburg before being appointed onto the United States Supreme Court. To explore the consequences of the Justices’ adopted jurisprudence, this study will then dissect areas of the law where the Justices interpret law similarly — conducting an intensive review of the following cases: Gonzalez v. Raich, Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, Blakely v. Washington, and Michigan v. Bryant. This thesis will lastly conduct an expansive review on the following cases to comprehend areas of the law that the Justices differ in interpretation: United States v. Virginia, and Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. This thesis finds that though the jurisprudences of both Justices differ, Scalia and Ginsburg both equally and positively contributed to American Society
Recommended from our members
Scalia v. Scalia ::opportunistic textualism in constitutional interpretation /
No full text"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. [This book] 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." -- Publisher's website
Medioevo latino. Bollettino bibliografico della cultura europea da Boezio a Erasmo (secoli VI - XV) - Volume 27
No full textBibliografia ragionata sulla latinità medievale. Fondato nel 1980 da Claudio Leonardi, R. Avesani, F. Bertini, G. Cremascoli, G. Orlandi e G. Scalia e pubblicato ogni anno, Medioevo latino è diventato un punto di riferimento per gli studiosi di medievistica. Diviso in grandi sezioni (Autori e testi, Fortleben, argomenti, generi letterari, istituzioni, scienze della storia, opere di consultazione, congressi e miscellanee), è corredato di un ricco apparato di indici. Il frutto del lavoro nasce dalla collaborazione fra numerose redazioni, nazionali e internazionali. La redazione bolognese è composta da V. Lunardini e R. Parmeggiani, coordinati da G. Cremascoli e impegnati in un intenso lavoro di spoglio e schedatura di riviste e volumi, per un paio di mesi all’anno
Medioevo latino. Bollettino bibliografico della cultura europea da Boezio a Erasmo (secoli VI - XV) - Volume 26
No full textFondato nel 1980 da Claudio Leonardi, R. Avesani, F. Bertini, G. Cremascoli, G. Orlandi e G. Scalia e pubblicato ogni anno, è diventato un punto di riferimento per gli studiosi di medievistica. Diviso in grandi sezioni (Autori e testi, Fortleben, argomenti, generi letterari, istituzioni, scienze della storia, opere di consultazione, congressi e miscellanee), è corredato di un ricco apparato di indici. Il frutto del lavoro nasce dalla collaborazione fra numerose redazioni, nazionali e internazionali. La redazione bolognese è composta da A. Albuzzi, R. Cristiani, V. Lunardini, R. Parmeggiani, coordinati da G. Cremascoli e impegnati in un intenso lavoro di spoglio e schedatura di riviste e volumi, per un paio di mesi all’anno
I minori sono Cosa Nostra? Criminalità organizzata, devianza minorile e sistema giudiziario a Palermo e Catania
No full textIl saggio, a partire dalle analisi delle risposte dei Tribunali per i Minori di Palermo e Catania, dimostra come la diversità di output giudiziari vada posta in relazione con la struttura organizzativa delle mafie locali ed in particolare con il controllo che queste esercitano sulla criminalità minoril
Scalia Slugs It Out
No full textA Matter of Interpretation Antonin Scalia, Princeton University Press, 1997, 159 pages, $20
Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, has done more to combat judicial activism than any other living person. Since taking his seat on the High Court in 1986, he has defended and applied a mode of constitutional interpretation - most often called originalism, sometimes textualism - the precise aim of which is to reduce, if not eliminate, judicial lawmaking. Scalia maintains that judges, even Supreme Court Justices, must distinguish what they think law ought to be from what the rule of law in the relevant text actually is. They must faithfully apply the latter.
It is the text that must be observed, Scalia writes in this important new volume. The book comprises the Tanner lectures he delivered at Princeton, comments by four highly distinguished scholars, and Scalia\u27s response to the commentators. The lectures make up less than half the volume; rather little of them is directly about the matter of constitutional interpretation
Third Scalia–Ginsburg Colloquy
No full textThe third Scalia–Ginsburg Colloquy featured a discussion of Trump v. Anderson, in which the Court considered whether the former president’s actions prohibit him from seeking re-election
Justice Scalia, Standing, and Public Law Litigation
No full textUnited States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has become an important figure in American constitutional law. Over the past five years, he has worked significant changes in our legal landscape. Yet, Justice Scalia\u27s most important opinion in federal courts law is his most recent one-last summer\u27s decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. This ruling, in the author\u27s view, will mark a transformation in the law of standing-the law of judicial control of public officers. Building upon his prior academic writings and opinions as both a Justice and a federal appellate court judge, Scalia concluded for the Defenders majority -without apparent embarrassment - that legislatively pronounced public rights cannot provide the basis for standing in the federal courts unless they coincide with the Justices\u27 views of discrete, concrete, and tangible injury. The decision is difficult to square with the language and history of Article III, with the injury requirement itself, with more modest visions of judicial power, and with timehonored notions of public law litigation. It is, therefore, worthy of some exploration and even some criticism. In this brief Article, the author will attempt to provide a measure of each
The Confrontation Clause: Maryland v. Craig and the Judicial Philosophies of Scalia and O\u27Connor
No full textThis thesis looks at the Confrontation Clause from the Sixth Amendment in light of the decision made in Maryland v. Craig. It examines the opinions of Justices Sandra Day O\u27Connor and Antonin Scalia, and determines if their judicial philosophies were consistent with their opinion. It does so by examining the history of the Confrontation Clause from ancient history to the present, and by enumerating the judicial philosophies of O\u27Connor and Scalia. In conclusion, while O\u27Connor\u27s majority opinion is consistent with her pragmatic philosophy, Scalia\u27s dissent is not consistent with his originalist views
- …
