Analysis: Module 4 Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Dane Schweigert Reaction Module 4 Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a strong proponent of textualism. In his 1997 book “A Matter of Interpretation,” Scalia makes many solid arguments for textualism and argues that all judges should use its philosophy in statutory interpretation. Textualism is defined as “a method of statutory interpretation that asserts that a statute should be interpreted according to its plain meaning and not according to the intent of the legislature, the statutory purpose, or the legislative history.” In this essay, I will examine Justice Scalia’s argument for textualism and relate his ideas to different court cases and hypothetical situations that highlight the difficulties of statutory interpretation. The

The drone would get the same ruling. The tank, however, would be a harder case to decide. While it would be clearly against the statute to drive a working tank through the park, the decommissioned tank would not be able to move and therefore would not be held under the same laws as a vehicle because it is not being used to transport anybody. While a strict constructionist would not allow the tank in the park as it still is technically a “vehicle,” Scalia would rule that the tank is allowed because it is not being used as a vehicle. This situation is similar to Smith v. United States as it pertains to the “use” of an object. In Scalia’s dissent, he says “when you ask someone, "Do you use a cane?" you are not inquiring whether he has hung his grandfather's antique cane as a decoration in the hallway.” In this case, the tank is the cane, and the fact that it is decommissioned is analogous to hanging said cane up as a decorative object. The 1893 supreme court case of Nix v. Hedden begs the question is a tomato, a fruit or a vegetable as it pertains the Tariff Act of March, 3, 1883. The statute placed tariffs on all