# Ya' wanna know what pisses me off about the SCOTUS ruling on medical marijuana? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 9, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576 "2005-06-09T08:38:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/21 "2005-06-09T20:38:42Z")
I plead laziness. I’ve never head of the Administrative Procedures Act, and so would have to research it to give an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/22 "2005-06-09T21:05:55Z")
Dang, **Gadarene** , you stole my drive-by. Not about the Administrative Procedures Act; the other one, about Scalia being a liberal. That freakin’ commie bastard. 😃 His vote with the majority on this _does_ seem to smack of a results-focussed variation in his strict constructionist principles. Any strict constructionists around here care to offer a rationale for Antonin? **John Mace**? **Bricker**? Anybody? Bueller? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/23 "2005-06-09T22:47:58Z")
Scalia isn’t a strict constructionist. He’s a textualist (first) and an originalist (second). He usually gets it right, but he got it wrong this time. I still prefer him over someone who gets it wrong more often than he does (like Stevens). ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/24 "2005-06-09T23:24:13Z")
Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/25 "2005-06-09T23:30:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Scalia isn’t a strict constructionist. He’s a textualist (first) and an originalist (second). 😕 Um…explain the difference between a strict constructionist and a strict textualist for me, other than that the latter is a subset of the former? Me no understand your big terms, so casually and confidently deployed. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/26 "2005-06-10T14:08:59Z")
E.g., from the Justice himself: > [@](#): > > In my experience, there is a fairly close correlation between the degree to which a person is (for want of a better word) a “strict constructionist” of statutes, and the degree to which that person favors Chevron and is willing to give it broad scope. The reason is obvious. One who finds more often (as I do) that the meaning of a statute is apparent from its text and from its relationship with other laws, thereby finds less often that the triggering requirement for Chevron deference exists. It is thus relatively rare that Chevron will require me to accept an interpretation which, though reasonable, I would not personally adopt. Contrariwise, one who abhors a “plain meaning” rule, and is willing to permit the apparent meaning of a statute to be impeached by the legislative history, will more frequently find agency-liberating ambiguity, and will discern a much broader range of “reasonable” interpretation that the agency may adopt and to which the courts must pay deference. The frequency with which Chevron will require that judge to accept an interpretation he thinks wrong is infinitely greater. Antonin Scalia, _Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law_, 1989 Duke L. J. 511, 521 (1989). _See also_ Bradley Karkkainen, _“Plain Meaning:” Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence of Strict Construction_, 17 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 401 (1994); Frederick Schauer, _Statutory Construction and the Coordinating Function of Plain Meaning_, 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 231 (1990). I should note that, in a later book, Scalia _does_ distinguish textualism and strict constructionism, calling strict constructionism “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation (1997), p. 23. But in this context he’s making it clear that he views “strict constructionism” as excessive literalism – which, per previous threads, is definitely _not_ the way you and **Bricker** use the term, **John**. Under your rubric, Scalia’s brand of plain meaning textualism is absolutely a strict constructionist philosophy (as he acknowledges himself in the passage I initially quoted). ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/27 "2005-06-10T15:14:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Right. Exactly. Let’s throw out Roe v. Wade. I agree completely. And Heart of Atlanta. And Brown v. Board. And Loving. And Griswold. Hell, let’s just go back to segregating blacks, regulating homosexual sex, and making it illegal to use contraception. Let’s ignore years of precedent and get back to the good old days when we could tell people what to do in their bedrooms and where being in the majority really meant something!!! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/28 "2005-06-10T15:52:53Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > I should note that, in a later book, Scalia _does_ distinguish textualism and strict constructionism, calling strict constructionism “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation (1997), p. 23. But in this context he’s making it clear that he views “strict constructionism” as excessive literalism – which, per previous threads, is definitely _not_ the way you and **Bricker** use the term, **John**. Under your rubric, Scalia’s brand of plain meaning textualism is absolutely a strict constructionist philosophy (as he acknowledges himself in the passage I initially quoted). My understanding is that “strict constructionism” results in an absolute reading of the text, without any interpretation at all. For example, if the constitution authorizes Congress to create and fund an army and a navy, it cannot fund the marines or the airforce. Originalism would understand that the intent was for Congress to be able to fund the military, and that the marines and air force are simply another branch of the military. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/29 "2005-06-10T16:10:56Z")
> [@](#): > > My understanding is that “strict constructionism” results in an absolute reading of the text, without any interpretation at all. So **Bricker’s** not a strict constructionist, then. Fair enough. Can you point me to any judge who would qualify as a strict constructionist under your view? And if not, what the heck’s the point of articulating a judicial philosophy to which no one adheres? (Putting aside the fact that “without any interpretation at all” is, in a literal sense, an impossible task.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/30 "2005-06-10T17:06:43Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > So **Bricker’s** not a strict constructionist, then. Fair enough. Can you point me to any judge who would qualify as a strict constructionist under your view? And if not, what the heck’s the point of articulating a judicial philosophy to which no one adheres? Why should I? I’m not the one throwing that term around. I would suggest that **Kaylasdad** , who first brought it up, should tell us what he means by that term, why he used it as he did, and who the examples are. My guess is that he used it as interchangeable with “textualist” and/or “originalist”. IOW, if he doesn’t clarify I’m willing to take a non-cosntructionist view of his post. 🙂 Did Scalia write anything in support of the majority opinion? If not, we’d just be guessing at what his motives were. Probably, we should just assume that he agreed with the reasonoing of the majority opinion. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/31 "2005-06-10T17:39:38Z")
It strikes me that the clarification for which I thanked **John Mace** above didn’t so much clarify anything as further obfuscate matters. Perhaps the fault is mine, and I wasn’t clear enough on what I wished to learn. Allow me to try again. I had formed the impression that those legal Dopers who champion strict constructionist decisions are admiring of Scalia because his approach to deciding the questions before him predisposes him against focusing on the outcome of the case, and toward focusing on whether the procedures have been properly adhered to. This is the approach that Justice O’Conner’s dissent appears to take, even though her way would have the result of allowing the individual states to regulate medical marijuana in their own ways. I’m really interested in knowing whether Scalia’s vote with the majority strikes his fans as sacrificing his judicial principles in favor of an outcome presumably more in line with his personal social views. If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/32 "2005-06-10T17:40:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Did Scalia write anything in support of the majority opinion? If not, we’d just be guessing at what his motives were. Probably, we should just assume that he agreed with the reasonoing of the majority opinion. Probably, you should [read the blessed opinion.](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf)🙂 (warning: .pdf file) I’m just telling you that your definition of “strict constructionist” doesn’t comport with its general usage as a legal term of art. You seemed to speak with such authority in dismissing the idea that Scalia was a strict constructionist, I wanted to clarify things for your edification. Strict constructionism, or narrow constructionism, is a self-identification of many textualists and originalists – and they don’t mean it in the sense of absolute literalism, 'cause that would be silly. During his first term, President Bush stated repeatedly his intention “to put strict constructionists on the bench.” Elisabeth Bumiller, Bush Vows to Seek Conservative Judges, N.Y. Times, Mar. 29, 2002, at A24. While to some “strict constructionism” may carry with it the normatively negative connotation of hyperliteralism, for most it’s just a handy and neutral descriptor for judges who will interpret a statute in accordance either with its plain meaning or (if such can be found, and to the extent that it alleviates the possibility that the plain meaning of the text will bring about a clearly contraindicated result) the plain meaning of the intentions of its drafters. In this respect, Scalia is _certainly_ a strict constructionist, or else the term has no useful application to the real world. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/33 "2005-06-10T18:23:04Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > I’m just telling you that your definition of “strict constructionist” doesn’t comport with its general usage as a legal term of art. You seemed to speak with such authority in dismissing the idea that Scalia was a strict constructionist, I wanted to clarify things for your edification. Strict constructionism, or narrow constructionism, is a self-identification of many textualists and originalists – and they don’t mean it in the sense of absolute literalism, 'cause that would be silly. If it’s a self-identification, and Scalia has explicitly said he is NOT one, then how can one reasonably call him that? 😕 > [@](#): > > During his first term, President Bush stated repeatedly his intention “to put strict constructionists on the bench.” Elisabeth Bumiller, Bush Vows to Seek Conservative Judges, N.Y. Times, Mar. 29, 2002, at A24. While to some “strict constructionism” may carry with it the normatively negative connotation of hyperliteralism, for most it’s just a handy and neutral descriptor for judges who will interpret a statute in accordance either with its plain meaning or (if such can be found, and to the extent that it alleviates the possibility that the plain meaning of the text will bring about a clearly contraindicated result) the plain meaning of the intentions of its drafters. In this respect, Scalia is _certainly_ a strict constructionist, or else the term has no useful application to the real world. You’re not seriously citing George Bush on matters of language, are you? I wouldn’t expect him to use that term correctly. Can you offer a cite, rather than just your own opinion, of the definitions that we’re bandying back and forth? If I look at [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism), Originalism is defined as being distinct from Strct Constructionism: > [@](#): > > Originalism in constitutional interpretation refers to two distinct ideas. One version, known as original intent, is the view that the interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what it was originally understood to mean by those who drafted and/or ratified it. The second version, known as original meaning or textualism, is the view that the meaning of the text of a constitution should be based on contemporary standards of grammar and usage. > > \ > > **Differentiated from Strict Constructionism** > > Both Originalists and Strict Constructionists take the plain meaning of the text as their starting point, but have different approaches that can best be illustrated with a fictitious example. > > Suppose that the Constitution contained (which it obviously does not) a provision that a person may not be “subjected to the punishment of hanging by the neck”. A Strict Constructionist would likely interpret that clause to mean that hanging was unconstitutional, but that other forms of capital punishment were not. However, an originalist would look at the context in which the clause was written, and might discover that hanging by the neck was the only form of capital punishment in use at that time, and the only form of capital punishment that had ever been used at the time of ratification. Faced with the same problem, an originalist might therefore conclude that capital punishment in general - including those methods for it invented since ratification - was unconstitutional. > > \ > > **Originalism is not strict constructionism** > > Interestingly, advocates of originalism are often associated with the strict constructionism theory of legislative interpretation, which holds that judges should not go behind the plain meaning of the text and would therefore rule out placing weight on legislative intent. Both philosophies are thought of as being in opposition to judicial activism, but potentially point to substantially differing results. Now, I recognize that Wiki is the be all and end all on the subject, and I’d be glad to review any cites you have from more authoritative legal sources. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/34 "2005-06-10T18:30:20Z")
_sigh_ Whatever, John. Originalism is not, per se, strict constructionism. Textualism is. You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make. Cites a’plenty coming up. But still, answer my question: are there any strict constructionist judges out there, in your view? Who are they? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/35 "2005-06-10T18:31:33Z")
From your Wikipedia quote: > [@](#): > > Interestingly, advocates of originalism are often associated with the strict constructionism theory of legislative interpretation, which holds that judges should not go behind the plain meaning of the text and would therefore rule out placing weight on legislative intent. This, by the way, describes Scalia’s professed jurisprudence to a T. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/36 "2005-06-10T18:38:58Z")
One more post before I hop on Lexis: Part of the problem here is that “strict constructionism” is kind of a broad and empty phrase, even by the broad standards of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Virtually anyone can claim to be interpreting a statute “strictly,” and virtually anyone can distance, almost by definition, their own interpretation from one that is “overstrict.” It’s much more helpful to say that someone is a “strict” textualist (like Scalia, generally) or originalist (like Thomas) or pragmatist (like Rehnquist) or minimalist (like O’Connor), or that someone (like Breyer) believes that legislative history is the superior interpretative tool. Being a “strict constructionist” tells us nothing about the ways in which someone interprets statutes and the Constitution, except as defined against alternate interpretations which are either “reasonable” (if strict constructionism is being used as a pejorative) or “activist” (if it’s being used in a positive manner). ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/37 "2005-06-10T18:40:59Z")
…And so what I’m giving you is the common parlance of the term, acknowledging that it’s fairly diffuse if you try to pin it down without reference to textualism (which is most often described as strict constructionist), originalism, or whatever. (Gotta finish my thought before I hit post, next time.) ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/38 "2005-06-10T18:49:12Z")
Well, god damn it, another perfectly good pit-thread ruined by a great debate. By liberal or conservative judges I was referring to how strictly they interpret the Constitution, not in a political sense, and I was actually suprised to see Scalia vote the way that he did. Anyway, **plnnr** , etc., hilarious work. I tried a bit in the OP, but your post was really the cause for some inappropriate non-stop giggling. **mhendo** , I’m not trying to say that there aren’t people on both sides that are taking a reasonable response to this decision. I just decided to throw up a random example from both sides of people pretending that this was a decision on marijuana itself for the court. I actually decided to start this thread after watching _The Daily Show with Jon Stuart_ where they had someone from NORML that expressed disappointment in the verdict but immediately said that NORML’s efforts would be focused on the legislature from then on out. I’m not saying that everyone is being a dumbass. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/39 "2005-06-10T19:06:16Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > …And so what I’m giving you is the common parlance of the term, acknowledging that it’s fairly diffuse if you try to pin it down without reference to textualism (which is most often described as strict constructionist), originalism, or whatever. > > (Gotta finish my thought before I hit post, next time.) But when discussing matters of the law, and the justices themselves, shouldn’t we be using words according to their precise meaning? Here’s an excerpt from an interview with [Kevin Ring](http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/scalia-dissents.htm), author of Scaila Dessents: > [@](#): > > GIACHINO: In your book, Scalia Dissents, you make a pretty good case that Justice Scalia is a strict constructionist. Would you agree with that, or is it more accurate to refer to him as a textualist or a judge who believes in original understanding? Where would you put him? > > RING: He is two of the three things that you mentioned. He is a textualist. His philosophy directs judges to look first to the text of the Constitution or the statute that he is interpreting. People say “yeah, no kidding, why wouldn’t you?” But that was not always the case. It had become fashionable — and in some cases it still is — for a judge to listen to a case and think what is the best resolution of this, or what is the most fair and equitable in my view. And Scalia says: No, we have a rule of law and the only way we know what that rule of law is is to look at what that law says in black and white. So he is a textualist. > > He is not, however, a strict constructionist, which is a fashionable term on the right. He has actually said that no one should be a strict constructionist, although better that than a non-textualist. And by strict constructionist, I think he means a too narrow reading of words. So, he uses as an example where somebody says “do you use a cane,” they mean “do you walk with a cane” not “do you have a decorative cane hanging in the front hallway as a decoration for your house.” In Scalia’s view, words should be given their ordinary and reasonable meaning. Not a strict or a narrow reading. So that differentiates him from some others. > > And, as you said, he does look for the original understanding. He doesn’t try to discern intent, because that is unknowable. But understanding — what did the word mean to the reasonable person at that time, what did the person think? And he does analysis to try to figure that meaning out. So again, there is a fixed meaning and not one that changes over time and can be distorted by judges. My emphasis. And note how he corrects the interviewer’s assumption that he (King) had characterized Scalia as a strict constructionist. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576/40 "2005-06-10T19:22:24Z")
Right. So Scalia there is defining “strict constructionist” as “something it is bad to be.” Fine. In that case, I maintain that it’s essentially null-set. Nobody wants to be something it’s bad to be. But as a matter of constitutional and statutory interpretation, I stand by what I said: strict constructionism is not an interpretative philosophy. Rather, it’s something to be contrasted with “judicial activism.” Nobody wants to be called a judicial activist, many people self-identify as wanting strict constructionism (albeit not in the sense of literalism-to-the-point-of-absurdity), but it’s a normative term rather than one describing the process by which a judge decides a case. Used as you’re it, it’s a critique rather than a choice of jurisprudential tools. Emphasizing text over legislative history is a choice of jurisprudential tools. Emphasizing changed social context over original intent is a choice of jurisprudential tools. Once the tool is chosen, it can be deployed in a strict manner, in a “reasonable” manner (whatever that means), or in an activist manner. One can interpret text narrowly (or strictly). One can interpret text broadly (or loosely). If anything, strict constructionism as described is the too-rigid use of one interpretative tool to the exclusion of others. I understand that this has gone afield of the original exchange – fine. Scalia’s not a strict constructionist (according to his own definition of the term) if he says he’s not. You’re right; kaylasdad was wrong. But using that definition, it’s a normative term…and not a helpful one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ya-wanna-know-what-pisses-me-off-about-the-scotus-ruling-on-medical-marijuana/307576.md?page=1)