INTERPRETATIVE METHOD AND THE FEDERAL-RULES OF EVIDENCE - A CALL FOR A POLITICALLY REALISTIC HERMENEUTICS

In a companion article, Professor Taslitz challenged the claims of many evidence scholars that the United States Supreme Court has adopted a ''plain meaning'' or ''new textualist'' approach to interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence.1 Rather, he argued, the Court has implicitly followed a more flexible, wide-ranging approach that considers varied data beyond the text. This Article argues that the Court has recently explicitly and vigorously moved closer to this more flexible approach. The Article more carefully defines this approach--this ''politically realistic hermeneutics''--defending it against plain meaning by drawing on the teachings of political science, economics, and literary theory.