Instant Analysis: Closing Address by Justice Scalia at #FedSoc2012

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?

“Court must follow statute, but Congress can’t enact general law to
dictate rules of interpretation that courts must apply. “that’s our
job” ”

I believe that one of the first Acts of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted “general law to dictate rules of interpretation.”

I know for a fact that Congress can, in any given statute, spell out how the text should be interpreted (or not). I fail to see why Congress lacks the authority to declare how the words that it duly enacts into law should be construed. For instance, why can it not lay down a principle that, when there is doubt, a particular point of view should prevail?