If you wish to know more about the way Scalia judges (or says he judges) I suggest you read Scalia's book, A Matter of Interpretation. Very easy to read. I intend to check it out again later today.
amazon.com
I am surprised to see Scalia described as an "originalist." I think of him as a "textualist," that is to say, someone who adheres to the language of the text. He doesn't approve of taking an historical approach to statutes, for example, he doesn't approve of looking at the legislative history. He says that so-called legislative histories (debates, statements put into the record, and so forth) only tell you what some legislators thought, not all of them. The text, on the other hand, is exactly what all of them voted on and approved, so stick to the text.
But then, I think of "originalists" as people who try to divine the intentions of the Founders by reading documents like Madison's history of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers.
What Scalia does is stick to the text of the Constitution but use the definitions in common usage at the time, the original meanings of the words in the text, rather than try to divine the intentions of the Founders, which is very subjective. Definitions of words are not subjective.
This might be a good time to mention that only a smallish percentage of cases before the Supreme Court involve the Constitution. Most involve statutes. |
