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
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Shop the Amazon.com Textbooks Store and save up to 70% on textbook rentals, 90% on used textbooks and 60% on eTextbooks. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
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.
I am only one-third through the book (underlining, underlining, underlining), but I cannot help going back to some of my documents this afternoon and improving them in specific detail based solely on what I have read so far in this wonderful book. I am looking forward to reading the book over dinners, breakfasts, and lunches in the next few days.
Just the section titled "Principals Applicable to All Texts" should make this book required reading for a host of people: law students in their writing courses, legistators, attorneys in legislative offices overseeing the drafting of statutes, judges, and just plain old transactional attorneys like me who eschew boilerplate forms and instead want to draft their own careful documents benefitting their clients.
Thank you to the authors for this interesting and deeply practical book. I am not sure Justice Scalia and Mr. Garner intended (!) the book to be a manual for drafters of legal documents, but it has already become an indispensable drafing manual for me.
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.
I am only one-third through the book (underlining, underlining, underlining), but I cannot help going back to some of my documents this afternoon and improving them in specific detail based solely on what I have read so far in this wonderful book. I am looking forward to reading the book over dinners, breakfasts, and lunches in the next few days.
Just the section titled "Principals Applicable to All Texts" should make this book required reading for a host of people: law students in their writing courses, legistators, attorneys in legislative offices overseeing the drafting of statutes, judges, and just plain old transactional attorneys like me who eschew boilerplate forms and instead want to draft their own careful documents benefitting their clients.
Thank you to the authors for this interesting and deeply practical book. I am not sure Justice Scalia and Mr. Garner intended (!) the book to be a manual for drafters of legal documents, but it has already become an indispensable drafing manual for me.
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!
Most Recent Customer Reviews
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 19 days 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 21 days 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 21 days 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 2 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 2 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 3 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 4 months ago by James E. Anhalt Jr.
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not what I thought
I heard an interview with Scalia on NPR about this book and thought it would be about constitutional law. It is really for lawyers who want to study cases.
Published 4 months ago by Cathy Davis
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
