Scalia is the recent co-author of the book “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts,” emphasizing their responsibility to interpret the law and the constitution, in a philosophy he calls “textualism.”
Despite voting against the healthcare reform, Scalia has stated he feels it is wrong to personally question the members of the court for their voting position.
Scalia says: “We are not a political institution, I don’t think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons.”
Though Scalia is often called a conservative, his notion of interpreting texts objectively and logically, not ideologically, is an important statement to make. He writes:
“The descent into social rancor over judicial decisions is largely traceable to nontextual means of interpretation, which erodes society’s confidence in a rule of law that evidently has no agreed-upon meaning,”
His recent interview states: “I don’t think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons.”
Regardless of my own positions on such legal issues such as healthcare, I find Scalia’s call for objectivity in rulings to be refreshing at a time when ideological emotionality seems to rule.