Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elena Kagan: The Supreme Court Adopted Scalia’s Textualist Judicial Reasoning
Washington Free Beacon ^ | October 18, 2017 | Andrew Kugle

Posted on 10/19/2017 11:14:24 AM PDT by Sopater

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Monday the high court has adopted much of the late Justice Antonin Scalia's textualist judicial reasoning.

Kagan was speaking to an audience at the Chicago-Kent College of Law when she said that Scalia's judicial reasoning has come to dominate the court, the Washington Examiner reported.

Scalia, who sat on the Supreme Court for 30 years before his death in 2016, was a proponent of textualism, a theory in which the interpretation of law is based on the meaning of legal text as it would be commonly understood at the time of its passage, and does not consider other factors like the law's intention when passed.

"In their full context, words mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written—with the understanding that general terms may embrace later technological innovations," Scalia and co-author Bryan Garner wrote of textualism in their 2012 book Reading Law.

Kagan explained that she believes the high court has two poles of judicial interpretation—Scalia and his strict textualism on one end, and Justice Stephen Breyer, who emphasizes a law's purpose and its real-world outcomes, on the other.

Kagan said the court as a whole is much closer to Scalia's viewpoint.

"I think, for the most part, we are within those poles but much closer to the Scalia pole: That we are a generally, fairly textualist court, which will generally think when the statute is clear you go with the statute," Kagan said. "Pretty much all of us now look at the text first and the text is what matters most."

"And if you can find clarity in the text that's pretty much the end of the ballgame," she continued. "Often texts are not clear, you have to look [farther]."

Former President Barack Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court in 2010 to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. Before being named to the high court, Kagan served as the country's first female solicitor general, the person who represents the U.S. government in cases before the Supreme Court.

Kagan and Scalia had a friendship outside of the court. During her confirmation process, Kagan invited herself to one of Scalia's hunting trips to better understand guns and proponents of the Second Amendment. Scalia took Kagan to his gun club, where she learned gun safety. After she was ready, the two would go on hunting trips that allowed their friendship to grow.

"He was as generous and warm and funny as a person could be. I just so appreciate all the time I got to spend with him," Kagan said six months after Scalia's death. "I miss him a lot."


TOPICS: Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; elenakagan; judicial; judicual; kagan; scalia; scotus; supremecourt; textualism; textualist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last
"He was as generous and warm and funny as a person could be. I just so appreciate all the time I got to spend with him," Kagan said six months after Scalia's death. "I miss him a lot."

I know I miss him, but I never had the pleasure of actually meeting him.
1 posted on 10/19/2017 11:14:24 AM PDT by Sopater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Interesting piece. Thanks.


2 posted on 10/19/2017 11:16:15 AM PDT by proust (Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

This is a real good start.


3 posted on 10/19/2017 11:17:21 AM PDT by Slyfox (Are you tired of winning yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

One of the men at my church is a well known attorney and overall brilliant guy. He was talking a few weeks ago about some case where he said he spent hours reviewing the law. He said it came down to one word.

The word was “may.” He said if the law read “Shall” he would have won his case, but since it said “may,” try as he might he was stuck.

I think that’s a good example of textualism.


4 posted on 10/19/2017 11:18:31 AM PDT by cyclotic (Trump tweets are the only news source you can trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“And if you can find clarity in the text that’s pretty much the end of the ballgame,” she continued. “Often texts are not clear, you have to look [farther].”

And the last sentence is very telling in that liberals will often reach their opinion by “looking farther” - IOW, loose interpretation of the laws to suit a political agenda.


5 posted on 10/19/2017 11:18:51 AM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

The timing of his demise, during an administration deeply opposed to “textualism”, is ... interesting.


6 posted on 10/19/2017 11:20:54 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (It's not "white privilege", it's "Puritan work ethic". Behavior begets consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

“textualist”

As in the Constitution means what it says?


7 posted on 10/19/2017 11:22:44 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

“Textualist” as opposed to .....(???)

Hormones?


8 posted on 10/19/2017 11:24:16 AM PDT by fwdude (The perverted left-bound train is always accusing the train station of "moving right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

where was kagan when scalia was... er, found.


9 posted on 10/19/2017 11:24:19 AM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I wish she would have elaborated more, because I do not see this from the court. Of course, if she merely means interpreting STATUTES literally, then maybe she is right.

If she means the CONSTITUTION, then I disagree. Is there a transcript of her speech?


10 posted on 10/19/2017 11:25:04 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I know, what a concept. The text means what it says in actual, y’know, words.

I mean, is that even legal?


11 posted on 10/19/2017 11:25:30 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (God is not the Author of Confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints --1 Cor 14:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic

Text isn’t dead, it is a proxy for ideas. And ideas convey truth.


12 posted on 10/19/2017 11:25:58 AM PDT by fwdude (The perverted left-bound train is always accusing the train station of "moving right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

So how does she explain her vote for homosexual marriage? The text of the laws on marriage was clear. Marriage had a definition, a clear definition. Yet she and her liberal cohorts decided we have to go beyond what marriage laws said, and decided that we should change the definition of marriage.

So how can she claim that textualist theory drives decision making, when at least in that case, the driving force was the desire to impose homosexual marriage, regardless of what the law said????


13 posted on 10/19/2017 11:26:14 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Yeah, right. The Constitution now says whatever the hell five out of nine Supreme Court Justices want it to say at any time.


14 posted on 10/19/2017 11:29:05 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
Punctuation can be important, too.

Let's eat, grandma.

Let's eat grandma.

15 posted on 10/19/2017 11:32:27 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land until amended in accordance with Article V, Alexander Hamilton asserted:

“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act.” – Alexander Hamilton

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson


16 posted on 10/19/2017 11:32:32 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Someone should ask the liberals, "If Congress and the President pass a law today, what mechanism should they use to communicate the meaning of that law so that the people and the judiciary know what it means?"

Should they include "penumbras" which hint at the scope of the law? Or should they simply write down the words which people and judges can understand, now and in the future?

Seems somewhat sad to have to praise Scalia for doing that which should be so obvious.

17 posted on 10/19/2017 11:39:22 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

The Law. Hmm-hmm.


18 posted on 10/19/2017 11:41:46 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I read somewhere that it Kagan was a personal friend of scalia’s. Maybe he has had some influence on her. Maybe we can hope


19 posted on 10/19/2017 11:46:59 AM PDT by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor are often guilty of textual assault on America.


20 posted on 10/19/2017 11:50:12 AM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson