Judging Ordinary Meaning

Abstract

Judges generally begin their interpretive task by looking for the ordinary meaning of the language of the law. And they often end there - out of respect for the notice function of the law or deference to the presumed intent of the lawmaker. Most everyone agrees on the primacy of the ordinary meaning rule. Yet scholars roundly bemoan the indeterminacy of the communicative content of the language of the law. And they pivot quickly to other grounds for interpretation.