Analytical Summary 8 - Uses Antonin Scalia book A Matter of Interpretation - Philosophy of Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Uses Antonin Scalia book A Matter of Interpretation...

Description

1 Eisenman Analytical Summary 8: A matter of interpretation when it comes to judges being the ultimate decision makers within the United States seems to be one of the reasons for the study of the courts. A legal question is presented to the courts, and the courts are the ones to determine what the statutes are saying and what the constitutions original meaning is. Once the Supreme Court—or more specifically the judges—decide what the Constitutions true meaning is, they are able to determine if the case that has been presented to them is legal or breaking the law. Justice Antonin Scalia had a very unique way of understanding legal precedent and how to interpret the Constitution in a fairly new interpretation of legal standard—Originalism. Through the analysis of Brands on how interpretation of statutes and the Constitution works, we can continue into Justice Antonin Scalia’s essay and rebuttal to others on his statements to truly understand his intent for his Originalist view. Jeffery Brands begins his analysis of statutory interpretation by defining it as “the process by which one understands a statute and applies it to particular circumstances” (Brands, 209). The question that is presented within the entire analysis, which Brands refines off of a series of questions is: “how should public officials interpret statutes in given legal systems” (Brands, 209)? I feel as though the interpretation of statutes is best applied when looking at the United States, as the Supreme Court can make a decision, that can bind the lower court’s decision or over rule it; this is not to say that the Supreme Court is the only one with this jurisdiction, as the lower courts have the ability to have final discretion on cases and the Supreme Court may never need to hear or decide on these cases, thus making their decision stand as the highest form of authority. In order for this to be understood as a fair legal process, brand furthers his analysis to help understand what the intent versus the understanding of statutes really is.

2 Eisenman Intent and understanding with Brand’s analysis give a good idea when an average citizen mixes them together, thus allowing for the question if judges mix the two together when settling on their precedent. Brand states that there is the true meaning of the statute based on the readers understanding, the legislative intent, and that if this is the case then there is no true meaning to the statute (Brand 210). I feel as though this sets a good understanding as to what Justice Antonin Scalia discusses within his essay about his thoughts on how interpretation is done within our Judicial System. Brand gives three basic views that Originalist hold within their arguments: 1. Courts should not change the meaning of statutes, 2. Only Originalism forbids courts from changing the meaning of statues, and 3. Therefore, only Originalism forbids courts from doing what they should not do (Brands, 212). This ties in to Justice Scalia’s interpretation within his essay and will further tie into Brand’s analysis on judicial review. Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Originalism is “an interpretive methodology focusing on what a given patch of constitutional text meant when it was originally enacted” (Scalia, xvi). I find Justice Scalia’s outlook on Originalism to be unique as he views it as a respecting theory that maintains that separation of power, federalism and rule of law exist together, but there is a way to interpret the law in the means of which it was first intended. He has the idea that within a common law system there is the necessity to apply the law to facts and to make the law (Scalia, 6). I find this to be interesting because on the basis of his definition of common law, if a judicial interpretation under common law is to make laws, is it on the basis of what the meaning in the Constitution would have been all those years ago? I feel as though his outlook on how he interprets law and how he assumes other judges under the same theory interpret the law allows for insight to the question; Justice Scalia states that he has a mind-set that ask “what is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of the results

3 Eisenman be evaded?” (Scalia, 13) I feel as though this sentence alone helps to define his thinking, as he is stating that with the review of the Constitution he is able to determine what the ruling would be and would in turn have to see what outside factors would deter from following the original meaning. He also offers another point to explain his use of the Originalist theory as the Constitution was meant to be interpreted as a whole—it was never meant to be nitpicked or taken only with certain phrases when determining the outcome of the law (Scalia, 37). Justice Scalia’s interpretation of the law is in sum, one that deals with finding the Constitutions original meaning, but also ties into Jeffery Brand’s analysis of judicial review. Brand states that just as statutes need to be interpreted and applied, the Constitution has to have the same done to it (Brand, 226). Judicial review is the process to have the overall enforcement of the Constitution within the United States; Brand finds the ultimate question within his analysis to be—who has the supreme authority to enforce the Constitution? (Brand, 228). One of the main arguments is that judicial review is not truly described within the text, and the Supreme Court has added this power to themselves to give them the highest enforcement of the Constitution in the state. I find that this best fits into Justice Scalia’s argument as Brand states that there are multiple methods of interpretation of the constitution; Brand states that within originalism, “if a court cannot determine with confidence what the original understanding of a provision would have entailed, then the court must simply uphold the challenged legislation” (Brand, 234). Scalia would agree with the meaning and find it to be one that would interpret what he feels the court should not be doing; the court should not be the one to create new laws on the basis of outside factors....