QUOTE(Henry M. Hart @ Jr. & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, page 1169)
Do not expect anybody's theory of statutory interpretation, whether it is your own or somebody else's, to be an accurate statement of what courts actually do with statutes. The hard truth of the matter is that American courts have no intelligible, generally accepted, and consistently applied theory of statutory interpretation.
Currently, there are no accepted rules of interpreting statutory laws for judges. Each judge can choose his or her own method of interpreting statutory law. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, less than a fifth of the issues the Court confronts are Constitutional issues, which makes interpreting the meaning of federal statutes the far majority of the work federal judges do.
One common theory of interpreting federal statutes is that when the text of a statute is clear, that is the end of the matter.
Another theory of interpreting the federal statutes is that legislative intent should be considered, even if the text of the statute is clear. In other words, the law should be enforced by what the legislator meant, not what he said.Questions for debate: Should judges adhere to a uniformly applied set of rules on how to interpret statutory law? If yes, which should be more authoritative: legislative text or legislative intent?