ipl-logo

Analysis: Module 4 Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

1086 Words5 Pages

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
1023 Words | 5 Pages

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Read More
550 Words | 3 Pages

The text also alluded to previous court cases, such as Marshall vs. Court and the National Back, where Congress was declared to having unconstitutional implementations, that were based on a loose structure. Summary Context and Point of View The Court had

Read More
897 Words | 4 Pages

This challenge was brought up again in the Edwards Aquifer v. Day case, showing a pattern in public opinion of property rights being violated. The resulting case decision is discussed as well. This source further develops the knowledge present by discussing the current Texas water and property laws; the discussion includes opinions from water conservation districts and facts about the history of certain law creations. A general sense of Texas law and its history is produced through reading this

Read More
789 Words | 4 Pages

In 1803 the Supreme Court which was led by a great man by the name of John Marshall chose a controversial case to take on that is still examined today by many. It is one of the most famous cases and goes by the name of Marbury vs Madsion. Now the question was whether a demonstration offensive to the constitution can turn into the tradition that must be abided by is an inquiry profoundly intriguing to the United States; however, not of an unpredictability proportioned to its advantage. It appears to be just important to perceive certain standards, expected to have been long and settled. The first argument was that the people have the original right to establish a constitution for now and, for the future generations.

Read More
1538 Words | 7 Pages

Conversely, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted the power of judicial review expressed in the constitution differently. He understood the court’s ability to “strike down” legislation as the command of the majority, which was embedded in the Constitution (O’Brien 173). This essay will analyze the juxtaposition between Alexander Hamilton’s blueprint for the Supreme Court in Federalist No. 78 and Chief Justice John Marshall’s

Read More
587 Words | 3 Pages

Oliphant 's Opaque Opinion Before Franklin Roosevelt 's New Deal, court justices referenced the Constitution in order to ensure economic liberty and prevention of encroachment upon private property. This conservative court was quick to strike down many of the New Deal initiatives, until there was a power shift on the bench in 1937. This historical context goes to show how a simple change in partisan power within the legal system has the potential to dramatically recalibrate the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, just one justice has the capacity to have a strong influence within the courtroom.

Read More
1541 Words | 7 Pages

Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional.

Read More
671 Words | 3 Pages

Every day that people spend on the Earth, there are obstacles that they have to overcome. Women have had to overcome many obstacles to be treated with respect. In "Source 1: Ruth Bader Ginsburg," and "Source 2: Sonia Sotomayor," both women have had to overcome challenges to work where they wanted. Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are women who have to work hard and overcome challenges to fight discrimination. Ruth Ginsburg had to fight against discrimination so she could become a judge and a lawyer.

Read More
2663 Words | 11 Pages

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society. I. Antonin Scalia: A brief overview of his law career beginning in 1961.

Read More
1486 Words | 6 Pages

With the essential background provided, Stern continued his article with an analysis of the Vega v. Tekoh decision and the potential consequences that could follow. Stern’s organization was logical and allowed the reader to follow the thought process behind his claims. An additional component of Stern’s article that increased the article's overall effectiveness was the use of context. Stern provided a well-contextualized examination of the supreme court's decision. The author speaks on the historical significance of the Miranda V. Arizona's case and the role it has played throughout history.

Read More
1222 Words | 5 Pages

From this verdict, it meant that any acts of Congress under executive and legislative are reviewed to ensure it supports the constitution. : The decision was made to provide federal courts have the power to void acts of Congress that do not support Article III of the United States constitution??? 4. What aspects of government or public or private life in the United States does the decision address?

Read More
2431 Words | 10 Pages

It became apparent to the United States Supreme Court Justices, that the newly appointed colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, brought a legal philosophy which would “test the courts” in the interpretation of the United States Constitution and how it should apply the law to a variety of landmark cases. Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite oppositions from other Court Justices, his critics, and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the Founding Fathers had meant when the Constitution was written originally (Ring 107). Antonin Scalia received his A.B. from the prestigious, Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg,

Read More
1324 Words | 6 Pages

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Read More
517 Words | 3 Pages

1. The supreme court is the highest federal court in the United States. It consists of nine supreme court justices. Federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by the senate. Once appointed the justices will serve on the supreme court for the rest of their lives, unless they are impeached.

Read More

More about Analysis: Module 4 Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Open Document