A Matter of Interpretation

Scalia’s Tanner Lectures on statutory and constitutional interpretation, published with responses from Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon and Ronald Dworkin and a reply from Scalia. His target is the common-law habit of treating a statute as raw material for judicial improvement; his argument is for textualism — the enacted words as the law, read as a reasonable contemporary would have understood them — and he is explicit that this is distinct from hunting the legislators’ subjective intent.

The entry carries a ☑️ on the source list. The page gives no legend for that mark, so it is recorded here only as “marked on the source list” — it is not known to mean read, essential, or start-here.

Why it’s on the list: It heads the Law and Legal Theory sub-section: the curriculum has spent two parts on institutions and rules, and this is the argument about who has authority over what the rules say.

Where I saw it: Brendan McCord’s Philosopher-Entrepreneur Reading List, in the section on Law and Legal Theory. Shared on X on March 9, 2026 and saved to Kyle’s “Books To Read” Apple Note. The full 211-entry transcription, with the four parts and sixteen sub-sections, is on The Philosopher-Entrepreneur Reading List.

Connections

• The Philosopher-Entrepreneur Reading List — the curriculum this card came from.
• Government — the separation-of-powers stake in who gets to say what a statute means.
• Regulation — statutory interpretation as the practical ground of administrative law.