In this groundbreaking book by best-selling authors Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, all the most important principles of constitutional, statutory, and contractual interpretation are systematically explained in an engaging and informative style-including several hundred illustrations from actual cases. Never before has legal interpretation been so fascinatingly explained. Both authors are individually renowned for their scintillating prose styles, and together they make even the seemingly dry subject of legal interpretation riveting. Though intended primarily for judges and the lawyers who appear before them to argue the meaning of texts, Reading Law is sound educational reading for anyone who seeks to understand how judges decide cases-or should decide cases. The book is a superb introduction to modern judicial decision-making. Justice Scalia, with 25 years of experience on the Supreme Court, is the foremost expositor of textualism in the world today. Bryan A. Garner, as editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary and author of Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, is the most renowned expert on the language of the law. Reading Law is an essential guide to anyone who wishes to prevail in a legal argument-based on a constitution, a statute, or a contract. The book is calculated to promote valid interpretations: if you have lame arguments, you'll deplore the book; if you have strong arguments, you'll exalt it. But whatever your position, you'll think about law more clearly than ever before.
Scalia and Garner's Reading Law
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Save up to 70% when you rent your textbooks on Amazon. Keep your textbook rentals for a semester and rental return shipping is free. |
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
162 of 175 people found the following review helpful
By Eros Faust
Format:Hardcover
I write this on the evening before the Supreme Court's expected ruling on the fate of the Affordable Health Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) because I don't want the decision in that case to color my favorable opinion of the book, which it might.
Justice Scalia is well known, but Bryan Garner, the co-author and the editor of Black's Law Dictionary, is less so. They have collaborated on a prior book, The Art of Persuading Judges, which I liked, and I like this book even more. I don't think it is intended to be read cover-to-cover like the prior book, but as a condensation of the principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation, it is unrivaled. You could read cases for decades and not get as clear an understanding of how to interpret them as you would from thumbing through this book while attempting to interpret a particular statute.
The first 51 pages, which include the Introduction and Principles Applicable to All Texts fall into the category of exposition on theories of interpretation. It is humorous in places. For example, at one point the authors quote from a constitutional scholar who says "the language structure, and history of law serve best as mediums [sic.] of restraint rather than excuses for intrusion." The use of the Latin abbreviation "sic." for "sic erat scriptum" or "thus was it written" leads you to punchline contained in the footnote which says "unless the passage refers to clairvoyants, media is the proper term." I'm not sure if that is Scalia's or Garner's work on display, but I still found it funny.
In short, it is recommended for anyone who must interpret statutes. I consider it more a reference than an exposition, but one that save readers gobs of time when deciding what a statute does, or should mean.
Justice Scalia is well known, but Bryan Garner, the co-author and the editor of Black's Law Dictionary, is less so. They have collaborated on a prior book, The Art of Persuading Judges, which I liked, and I like this book even more. I don't think it is intended to be read cover-to-cover like the prior book, but as a condensation of the principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation, it is unrivaled. You could read cases for decades and not get as clear an understanding of how to interpret them as you would from thumbing through this book while attempting to interpret a particular statute.
The first 51 pages, which include the Introduction and Principles Applicable to All Texts fall into the category of exposition on theories of interpretation. It is humorous in places. For example, at one point the authors quote from a constitutional scholar who says "the language structure, and history of law serve best as mediums [sic.] of restraint rather than excuses for intrusion." The use of the Latin abbreviation "sic." for "sic erat scriptum" or "thus was it written" leads you to punchline contained in the footnote which says "unless the passage refers to clairvoyants, media is the proper term." I'm not sure if that is Scalia's or Garner's work on display, but I still found it funny.
In short, it is recommended for anyone who must interpret statutes. I consider it more a reference than an exposition, but one that save readers gobs of time when deciding what a statute does, or should mean.
33 of 38 people found the following review helpful
By C. E. Hughes
Format:Hardcover
I practice law in the areas of probate litigation and estate planning. For almost twenty years I argued probate cases before judges who ultimately had to interpret the meaning of probate statutes and a legal document (a trust for instance). Two years ago I quit litigation and devoted my practice to preventative law--that is, I am attempting on behalf of my clients to either prevent probate litigation with carefully drafted documents, resolve probate disputes outside of court with carefully customized probate ADR agreements, or contain litigation in court with the most carefully drafted estate planning documents I can write--documents that judges cannot misinterpret. I recently had one of my documents tested in the Utah Supreme Court, where the Court unanimously (5-0) found that the text was clear and unambiguous on the dispute in issue and overturned the trial court's decision to the contrary. A frustrating case in that I thought my writing was clear enough for the trial court to understand.
Then I read yesterday's WSJ review on Justice Scalia's and Mr. Garner's book "Reading Law" (I wish Amazon would give reviewers a little more control in utilizing underlining or italics.) I bought a copy last night and have not been able to put it down.
This book is a goldmine for drafters of legal documents. The fundamental, semantic, syntactic, and contextual canons are not only fascinating to read, but are providing eminently practical drafting guidelines that have me intellectually hopping for joy. This book has already taken its place within handreach of my beloved Ninth Edition Black's Law Dictionary (thank you, Mr. Garner), my Chicago Manual of Style (thanks again for Mr. Garner's contributions), and my battered twenty-year-old Roget's Thesaurus.... Read more ›
Then I read yesterday's WSJ review on Justice Scalia's and Mr. Garner's book "Reading Law" (I wish Amazon would give reviewers a little more control in utilizing underlining or italics.) I bought a copy last night and have not been able to put it down.
This book is a goldmine for drafters of legal documents. The fundamental, semantic, syntactic, and contextual canons are not only fascinating to read, but are providing eminently practical drafting guidelines that have me intellectually hopping for joy. This book has already taken its place within handreach of my beloved Ninth Edition Black's Law Dictionary (thank you, Mr. Garner), my Chicago Manual of Style (thanks again for Mr. Garner's contributions), and my battered twenty-year-old Roget's Thesaurus.... Read more ›
82 of 100 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
Being a graduate of both of MIT and the University of Michigan Law School, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the legal mind of Justice Scalia. While I may not agree with everyone of his votes while on the Supreme Court, I am in 100% agreement with using Textualism and Originalism in deciding constitutional law cases. At time where judges confuse their roles and attempt to subvert the Constitution's clear language and meaning, this book is a breath of fresh air. Highly recommended!
14 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Must Read for Serious Lawyers - Serious Lawyers, not Egg-Sucking, Bottom-Feeding, Hallway Trash.
September 23, 2012
By A. Guidice
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
To be the very best attorneys we can be, we must study. Don't ever hire a lawyer who has never read a case - without being paid to read it - since law school. Right? Thus, for attorneys committed to their professions, this book is essential.
I think my colleagues who dislike Scalia don't like his manner - his aloof, imperious, wheezy, almighty law-professor aura. We all remember that from law school and we detest it. Right? The real criticism isn't his devotion to textualism, it's our natural dislike for inflexible, close-minded people. Scalia is certainly that. (God help me if I ever appear before him...).
But the book is compelling. The Canons of statutory interpretation section is very useful, and very handy for legal subjects where statutes are bandied about constantly, and at every level (as they are with immigration law, for example). This section is where Garner's hand is most discernible, discussions of English usage are clear, bright, and rich with possibilities. And Garner's writing is a pleasure to read: as smooth and rich as oil. This is what you buy the book for.
Scalia is most prominent in the very lengthy introduction, with it's dogmatic insistence on textualist sensibilities. It's almost offensive. We feel almost as though we're being scolded from the bench, yes? Scalia is really answering his critics here much more than he is trying to enlighten the reader.
I'd be willing to bet that Garner strongly advised a heavy edit in the introduction, maybe to half the length, but was unsuccessful. And Scalia doesn't really write all that well either... it's not an elegant style. Reading Scalia is like trying to land a golf ball on a boulder-strewn fairway: uncomfortable, and downright trying at times.... Read more ›
I think my colleagues who dislike Scalia don't like his manner - his aloof, imperious, wheezy, almighty law-professor aura. We all remember that from law school and we detest it. Right? The real criticism isn't his devotion to textualism, it's our natural dislike for inflexible, close-minded people. Scalia is certainly that. (God help me if I ever appear before him...).
But the book is compelling. The Canons of statutory interpretation section is very useful, and very handy for legal subjects where statutes are bandied about constantly, and at every level (as they are with immigration law, for example). This section is where Garner's hand is most discernible, discussions of English usage are clear, bright, and rich with possibilities. And Garner's writing is a pleasure to read: as smooth and rich as oil. This is what you buy the book for.
Scalia is most prominent in the very lengthy introduction, with it's dogmatic insistence on textualist sensibilities. It's almost offensive. We feel almost as though we're being scolded from the bench, yes? Scalia is really answering his critics here much more than he is trying to enlighten the reader.
I'd be willing to bet that Garner strongly advised a heavy edit in the introduction, maybe to half the length, but was unsuccessful. And Scalia doesn't really write all that well either... it's not an elegant style. Reading Scalia is like trying to land a golf ball on a boulder-strewn fairway: uncomfortable, and downright trying at times.... Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fascinating
Excellent if long and wordy explanation of our justice system as a whole, but perceptive with the individual cases and areas of law. And a great reference.
Published 3 days ago by Theodore M. Wight
5.0 out of 5 stars
Reading Law
Purchased as a Christmas gift for my son who just passed his bar exam. Not quite certain if he has started to read it yet.
Published 1 month ago by denisemurdza
5.0 out of 5 stars
It was a gift
Great book for a lawyer, and written by a very thoughtful Justice - even though I often disagree with his point of view.
Published 1 month ago by GAR
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great book; suprisingly easy to read.
Great resource for learning about "fair reading" textualism and statutory interpretation altogether. Read more
Published 1 month ago by D Will
5.0 out of 5 stars
Insane
Scalia is brilliant, this book truly represents what legal analysis was and should be. The law had nothing to do with political affiliation or how you personally feel about an... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Tonio
5.0 out of 5 stars
Antonin Scalia
I always enjoy reading books and other media that Antonin writes and this was a great read for my office!
Published 3 months ago by Larry
3.0 out of 5 stars
Mediocre at best.
Pompous writing-too much like Scalia's verbiage in court! So much for abstract thinking on his part- would not purchase again.
Published 3 months ago by Paula D. Rice
5.0 out of 5 stars
Court cases are interesting
My husband enjoyed reading it. He is very interested in the law and judges. It was very informative for him.
Published 4 months ago by Cheryl Petersen
5.0 out of 5 stars
America's judicial religion: A book every American should read
My professional interest as an attorney originally attracted me to Reading Law. Having finished the first 107 pages, I enthusiastically echo another Amazon reviewer who wrote,... Read more
Published 4 months ago by Kurt S. Schulzke
3.0 out of 5 stars
Tedious but interesting
Haven't finished yet, but interesting. Slow reading, and a little repetitive. It would be a change from what we have now if Scalia would run for president.
Published 5 months ago by James E. Anhalt Jr.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
