Source: Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think (2008), p. 191 Bottom - 192 Top.
[2.] "Strict construction" can mean interpreting statutes (and other documents to which legal significance attaches) narrowly, as in the old "canon of construction" that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted narrowly so as to minimize their inroads into that law. Or it can mean interpreting statutes and other documents literally, that is, according to the "plain meaning" of their words, without recourse to considerations of legislative history, real-world context or consequences, or other indicia of legislative purpose. Literal interpretations
can be astonishingly broad. "Literal when narrow" may be the practical meaning of strict construction. The loose constructionist is a nonliteralist, [1.] but he does not necessarily favor broad interpretations of statutes or constitutional provisions, creating new judicially enforceable rights. [End of 1.] [2.] He could in other words be a practitioner of judicial self-restraint rather than of judicial activism.
How is 1 true? Any examples?
Can someone expound 2 please? How can Loose Constructionism facilitate judicial self-restraint?