I purchased this book by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner out of my interest in interpretation. Since learning about various styles, or judicial philosophies, I have been very fond of the subject. The debate in the American context is coined as the right-wing textualists versus the left-wing activists. However, while this book includes many arguments for textualism or originalism, a lot of utility can be derived from the principles articulated in the book.
I’ll admit, I am a fan of Justice Scalia’s writing. Previously, I have read some of his more colourful decisions, and his use of the English language is entertaining. Even though I am not American, we get a lot of exposure to the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Canada – even more than the Supreme Court of Canada.
I first came across Bryan Garner from another book, ‘The Winning Brief,’ which I used to improve memorial writing. Also in my collection is a copy of Garner’s ‘Black’s Law Dictionary.’ He has a lot of knowledge, relevant quotations, and excellent sources.
Now onto the book:
‘Reading Law’ lists the principles that make up the canons of construction. These canons are used to interpret the text of constitutions, statutes, treaties etc. Each principle is described through caselaw (primarily American) and provides scholarly criticisms as well. This book is not just for someone who is a fan of textualism; the principles are well established and used by judges of all philosophies.
A good deal of my thesis involves identifying arguments and categorizing them based on their type. Text-based arguments can use canons of construction. It was in this regard the book proved invaluable to my research. One important aspect of legal treatises is the sources they use. The authors provide many sources that can expand your knowledge, which I recommend checking to further your understanding.
I recommend ‘Reading Law’ to anyone interested in law. Period. Of course, there is a niche interest to those like me who enjoy reading about interpretation, but the cases discussed are very interesting. Reading about how the principles are applied, even wrongly, is a great way to show them in action and not just in theory. It is okay if you are not a Scalia fan; being informed on these principles and the criticisms assist in formulating counter-arguments. (Plus Scalia can be very humourous at times)
