Much more at Legal Positivism: http://www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ Note however that it's not the only academic theory of judicia

Much more at Legal Positivism: http://www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ Note however that it's not the only academic theory of judicial interpretation, and despite its popularity, it still leaves a few gaps as a predictive theory. Sure, it explains why justices tend to vote along ideological lines. Unfortunately, they often don't. Having abandoned any acknowledgment of legislative or judicial constraints, the theory has nothing to fall back on to explain those cases.[1] Justices are most likely operating under multiple constraints in any given opinion. Some of those constraints are dictated by their approach to textual interpretation, just as some are dictated by other ideas about fairness or social norms. [1] Scalia's liberal opinions are a fun read. They have Scalia defending maternity leave, asylum seekers, armed robbers, and members of the communist youth league. Often he's marshalling the same impatient sarcasm against the right as he more famously deploys against the left.