Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts

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. Many lawyers and judges find the "content" of his opinion (and other) writing objectionable, but I feel it'd be much easier to swallow if the "form" of the writing weren't so ponderous, and almost oppressive at times... But the Canons of Construction section will stand you in good stead when you're writing briefs and memos. Buy the book, read half the introduction, then read the Canons section. Keep it close at hand when you're writing. It's good background, good fortification for serious, scholarly attorneys. (People Magazine will suffice for the rest of you...) The book probably would have been better if Garner had written it alone, but it's still very much worth having. Even Scalia haters will like the book (c'mon, huh? The guy is from Trenton, after all...).

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ They Took the Key of Knowledge—This Book Gives It Back This is not just a book for lawyers. This is the book for We the People—those of us who never went to law school but want to truly understand how the legal system works (and how it doesn’t work like they claim). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts is a master key. It teaches you how laws are written, how they’re supposed to be applied, and how to recognize when they’re being twisted or misused—especially against ordinary Americans. You’ll learn real legal principles like: - Ejusdem Generis – general words are limited by the specific ones before them. - Noscitur a Sociis – context matters, words take their meaning from their surroundings. - Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – if something is listed, anything *not* listed is excluded. These are not random Latin phrases—they’re the rules judges and lawmakers are supposed to follow when interpreting laws. Most people (and honestly, most lawyers) have no idea these tools even exist. And yet they’re the foundation of real legal understanding. If you're tired of the "patriot mythology" junk floating around online (all-caps names, UCC filings on your birth certificate, etc.), this book will be a breath of fresh air. It cuts through the noise and gives you actual tools—*not theories*—to understand and challenge misapplied law. I’ll say it plainly: this book should be in every American’s home. Not just for reference, but for defense. This is the knowledge that was quietly removed from public education. It belongs to you. “Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge...” – Luke 11:52 Well, here’s the key. Get this book. Study it. Share it. We’re not powerless—just uninformed. That ends now.

Exactly what I expected from Scalia and Garner...well written, precise, and presented in a way that allows for immediate application into an attorney's legal writing. Each of the textualist 'rules' provides several examples and at least one anecdote that helps solidify the principle offered. For anyone who needs to understand, apply, and argue the meaning of the law, this book is a no-brainer. Regardless of whether you agreed with Scalia's jurisprudence, this book is a valuable resource. Interpreting the law is the perfect title for this book...and...if the title doesn't get you excited, I can't imagine what lies between the front and back cover will either. Perhaps someone with an incredible passion for the law might find the subject matter fascinating, but for the most part, this is more of an instruction manual than an academically oriented read. I am a new attorney and refer to this text at least three or four times each week. I don't remember what I paid for this--but I would pay triple knowing what I know now. Scalia left an indelible mark on the Court, the legal community, and by virtue of his position as a justice, the course of the United States. I suspect there will be several books written about the man Scalia was--this is not one of them. Rather, this is a gift to those who practice that will be relevant for generations.

If had not been clear before, the final line of the book will leave the reader in no doubt that the argument throughout 'Reading Law', more than for originalism or textualism, is for democracy itself. Out of the dry matter of judicial interpretation, Scalia and Garner make an elegant case for judicial restraint as one of the bedrocks of American democracy. The authors codify canons of statutory interpretation that have enjoyed storeyed use, predominantly borrowing from Anglo-American jurisprudence. In a subsequent section, they deal with a variety of false notions and half-truths, reserving particularly withering scorn for legislative intent. (Which legislative intent? Of one congressman? Or lobbyist? And at which point in the legislative process? And why should the voice of one be allowed to rule the democractic will of the assembly as reflected in the words of the statute?) The authors' case is that judicial respect for the statutes issuing from democratic assemblies is respect for the democratic process itself. It is clear throughout the work that the authors view the beginning of judicial activism as the end of democratic oversight and control. Scalia and Garner write respectively from a social conservative and socially liberal perspective, in favour of originalist and textualist interpretative approaches, and it is greatly to be regretted that these approaches are often crudely described as conservative, as though liberalism and the soundest interpretations of the democratic will were contradictory. To be a liberal textualist or liberal originalist is no more contradictory than to be a conservative consequentialist. There is a poignancy too in reading the text: how greatly it is to be regretted that one American's finest jurists was taken from us in - judging by this work - his intellectual prime.

Must for library

A good book which summarised principles in relation to interpreting statutory provisions in common law in simple language with examples. I guess many have come across Bennion but this one is much easier to understand. I have the great honour to hear Justice Scalia and Professor Garner to speak on the book in Hong Kong shortly before Justice Scalia passed away...

for me a very useful and original text; fresh insights and classificatory models that i've found very useful in these early days of my LLB studies...

Controversial (because Justice Scalia is one of the authors), but a brilliant piece of scholarship nonetheless.