Antonin Scalia – författare

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative. In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges 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 lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated.Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the "strict constructionism" 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. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals. This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. In the spirit of debate, Justice Scalia responds to these critics.Featuring a new foreword that discusses Scalia's impact, jurisprudence, and legacy, this witty and trenchant exchange illuminates the brilliance of one of the most influential legal minds of our time.

"The passing of this brilliant jurist is a great loss, but his writings—with their plain language and constitutional moorings—will guide generations to come." - Speaker of the House Paul Ryan The sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia shook America. After almost thirty years on the Supreme Court, Scalia had become as integral to the institution as the hallowed room in which he sat. His wisecracking interruptions during oral arguments, his unmatched legal wisdom, his unwavering dedication to the Constitution, and his blistering dissents defined his leadership role on the court and inspired new generations of policymakers and legal minds. Now, as Republicans and Democrats wage war over Scalia’s lamentably empty Supreme Court seat, Kevin Ring, former counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Constitution Subcommittee, has taken a close look at the cases that best illustrate Scalia’s character, philosophy, and legacy. In Scalia’s Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents, Ring collects Scalia’s most memorable opinions on free speech, separation of powers, race, religious freedom, the rights of the accused, abortion, and more; and intersperses Scalia's own words with an analysis of his legal reasoning and his lasting impact on American jurisprudence. “I don’t worry about my legacy,” Scalia once told an audience at the National Archives. “Just do your job right, and who cares?” Now that "the lion of American law has left the stage,” as the U.S. Attorney General put it, it is for the rest of America to worry about his legacy—and to care.

Este volumen recoge uno de los debates de mayor relevancia para el Derecho Constitucional contemporáneo: el debate sobre el estatus de la interpretación constitucional como problema central en la definición de los contenidos de una Constitución democrática.El texto con el que se abre el volumen corresponde a uno de los protagonistas de estas discusiones, el Juez de Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, Antonin Scalia, quien define una concepción que, según considera, es más leal con principios fundamentales como el "democracia" y el "imperio de la ley". En defensa de su posición, argumento que se trata de restablecer la "soberanía popular" contra la usurpación del "activismo judicial".La interpretación originalista de la Constitución que propone es homologable al "textualismo razonable", conforme al cual, "Las palabras sí tienen una gama de significados limitada y ninguna, interpretación que vaya más allá de aquella gama debe ser admitida.Participan los debates algunas de las figuras más notables del Derecho Constitucional, el derecho comparado, la historia y la filosofía. Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Laurence Tribe y Gordon Wood, construyen, desde diferentes perspectivas, algunos de los argumentos más lúcidos sobre los mitos e inconvenientes que rodean al originalismo sugerido por Scalia. Un libro para someter a prueba nuestra propia concepción sobre la democracia y los derechos en una sociedad plural.ANTONIN SCALIA es Juez de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos desde 1986. Considerado uno de los mayores exponentes del originalismo en la interpretación de la Constitución, el Justice A. Scalia (N. Yersey 1936), defiende su concepción de la interpretación constitucional como la más consecuente con el ideal del Constitucionalismo democrático que obliga a los jueces a sujetarse a la Constitución.