|
|
|
|
LEADER |
00000cam a2200000 i 4500 |
001 |
EBSCO_on1017736999 |
003 |
OCoLC |
005 |
20231017213018.0 |
006 |
m o d |
007 |
cr cnu---unuuu |
008 |
180103s2017 alu ob 001 0 eng d |
040 |
|
|
|a N$T
|b eng
|e rda
|e pn
|c N$T
|d YDX
|d BOL
|d OCLCF
|d STF
|d AGLDB
|d G3B
|d IGB
|d OCLCQ
|d OCLCO
|d OCLCA
|d OCL
|
020 |
|
|
|a 9780817391607
|q (electronic bk.)
|
020 |
|
|
|a 0817391606
|q (electronic bk.)
|
020 |
|
|
|z 9780817319700
|
020 |
|
|
|z 0817319700
|
029 |
1 |
|
|a AU@
|b 000062578052
|
035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)1017736999
|
043 |
|
|
|a n-us---
|
050 |
|
4 |
|a KF8745.S33
|b L36 2017eb
|
072 |
|
7 |
|a LAW
|x 018000
|2 bisacsh
|
072 |
|
7 |
|a LAW
|x 075000
|2 bisacsh
|
082 |
0 |
4 |
|a 342.73001
|2 23
|
049 |
|
|
|a UAMI
|
100 |
1 |
|
|a Langford, Catherine L.,
|d 1974-
|e author.
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Scalia v. Scalia :
|b opportunistic textualism in constitutional interpretation /
|c Catherine L. Langford.
|
246 |
3 |
|
|a Scalia versus Scalia
|
264 |
|
1 |
|a Tuscaloosa :
|b The University of Alabama Press,
|c [2017]
|
300 |
|
|
|a 1 online resource (xi, 162 pages)
|
336 |
|
|
|a text
|b txt
|2 rdacontent
|
337 |
|
|
|a computer
|b c
|2 rdamedia
|
338 |
|
|
|a online resource
|b cr
|2 rdacarrier
|
490 |
1 |
|
|a Rhetoric, law, and the humanities
|
504 |
|
|
|a Includes bibliographical references and index.
|
520 |
|
|
|a Scalia v. Scalia:Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation examines Scalia's discussions of textualism in his speeches, extrajudicial writings, and judicial opinions. Throughout his writings, Scalia argues textualism is the only acceptable form of constitutional interpretation. Yet Scalia does not clearly define his textualism, nor does he always rely upon textualism to the exclusion of other interpretive means. Scalia is seen as the standard bearer for textualism. But when textualism fails to support his ideological aims (as in cases that pertain to states' rights or separation of powers), Scalia reverts to other forms of argumentation. Langford analyzes Scalia's opinions in a clear area of law, the cruel and unusual punishment clause; a contested area of law, the free exercise and establishment cases; and a silent area of law, abortion. Through her analysis, Langford shows that Scalia uses rhetorical strategies beyond those of a textualist approach, concluding that Scalia is an opportunistic textualist and that textualism is as rhetorical as any other form of judicial interpretation.
|
588 |
0 |
|
|a Print version record.
|
590 |
|
|
|a eBooks on EBSCOhost
|b EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide
|
600 |
1 |
0 |
|a Scalia, Antonin,
|d 1936-2016.
|
600 |
1 |
7 |
|a Scalia, Antonin,
|d 1936-2016
|2 fast
|0 (OCoLC)fst00184458
|
650 |
|
0 |
|a Constitutional law
|z United States
|x Philosophy.
|
650 |
|
0 |
|a Constitutional law
|z United States
|x Interpretation and construction.
|
650 |
|
7 |
|a Constitutional law.
|2 fast
|0 (OCoLC)fst00875797
|
650 |
|
7 |
|a Constitutional law
|x Philosophy.
|2 fast
|0 (OCoLC)fst00875821
|
651 |
|
7 |
|a United States.
|2 fast
|0 (OCoLC)fst01204155
|
776 |
0 |
8 |
|i Print version:
|a Langford, Catherine L., 1974-
|t Scalia v. Scalia.
|d Tuscaloosa : The University of Alabama Press, [2017]
|z 9780817319700
|w (DLC) 2017020442
|w (OCoLC)986788680
|
830 |
|
0 |
|a Rhetoric, law, and the humanities.
|
856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://ebsco.uam.elogim.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=1616318
|z Texto completo
|
938 |
|
|
|a EBSCOhost
|b EBSC
|n 1616318
|
938 |
|
|
|a YBP Library Services
|b YANK
|n 15067698
|
994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b IZTAP
|