Justice Scalia from the University of Chicago.
October 7, 2005
Here is a passage from an excellent essay: (click here) "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."
This passage is from Justice Scalia's essay in the book, A Matter of Interpretation. In his essay, Justice Scalia defends "textualism." He thinks that a strict constructionist is "better . . ., I suppose, than a nontextualist." But he describes strict constructionism as "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."
Justice Scalia's discussion is relevant because the President seeks judges who believe in "strict construction"; because nominee Harriet Miers has said that the Constitution should be strictly construed; and because several prominent Republicans want some assurance that Ms. Miers believes in "strict construction." But as with "not legislating from the bench," so too here: It is not at all clear what "strict constructionists" do or believe....
The Republicans inside the beltway, Rubio and Cruz, are caught in the language of rhetoric.
There is no threat to religious liberty. Was Pope Francis not here? He was not only here he was here several days with a daunting agenda.
October 7, 2005
Here is a passage from an excellent essay: (click here) "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."
This passage is from Justice Scalia's essay in the book, A Matter of Interpretation. In his essay, Justice Scalia defends "textualism." He thinks that a strict constructionist is "better . . ., I suppose, than a nontextualist." But he describes strict constructionism as "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."
Justice Scalia's discussion is relevant because the President seeks judges who believe in "strict construction"; because nominee Harriet Miers has said that the Constitution should be strictly construed; and because several prominent Republicans want some assurance that Ms. Miers believes in "strict construction." But as with "not legislating from the bench," so too here: It is not at all clear what "strict constructionists" do or believe....
The Republicans inside the beltway, Rubio and Cruz, are caught in the language of rhetoric.
There is no threat to religious liberty. Was Pope Francis not here? He was not only here he was here several days with a daunting agenda.
