Wildy logo
(020) 7242 5778
enquiries@wildy.com

Wildy’s Book News

Book News cover photo

Vol 22 No 4 April/May 2017

Book of the Month

Cover of Whistleblowing: Law and Practice

Whistleblowing: Law and Practice

Price: £175.00

Pupillage & Student Offers

Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students

Read More ...


Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online

Read More...


UK Public Holiday May 2017

Wildy's will be closed on Monday 29th May and will re-open on Tuesday 30th May.

Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.

As usual Credit Cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.

Any non-UK eBook orders placed after 5pm on the Friday 26th May will not be processed until Tuesday 30th May. UK eBook orders will be processed as normal.

Hide this message

This book is now Out of Print.
A new edition is due, details can be seen here:
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 2nd ed isbn 9780691174044

A Matter of Interpretation

Image not available lge

ISBN13: 9780691026305
ISBN: 0691026300
New Edition ISBN: 9780691174044
Published: April 1999
Publisher: University Presses of California, Columbia and Princeton
Country of Publication: USA
Format: Hardback
Price: Out of print



In this essay, Judge Antonin Scalia argues that the common-law mindset, although appropriate in its place, is not suitable for statutory and constitutional interpretation. In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, he urges judges to resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history.

In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawyers meant, rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. He argues that eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself.

Scalia proposes that the notion of an ever-changing Constitution is abandoned and that attention is paid to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the ""strict constitutionalism"" that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly ""smuggle"" in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance.