4 ms·

I am likely to believe he is one of those. Guess which one.

by philipov 2y ago

throwup238 2y ago
Definitely the vampire squid. SCOTUS hasn't had a real originalist in like 200 years.
- philipov 2y ago
  You know something the Constitution doesn't say? It doesn't say that you should only interpret the Constitution based on what it says. Therefore, the originalist position is self-contradictory, because it's not contained in the Constitution.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dudeinjapan 2y ago
  > …the Constitution doesn't say… that you should only interpret the Constitution based on what it says. So we should interpret it based on the things it doesn’t say?
  - philipov 2y ago
    The problem with interpreting the Constitution is that a lot of things are left unsaid or undefined. There is a wealth of writing outside the Constitution that helps clarify what was intended when the text of the Constitution is ambiguous, such as the Federalist Papers. Alito's originalist position is that he can reject using such contemporary sources, that he can reject all precedent, and interpret the ambiguous portions of the Constitution however he wants. --- Incidentally, one of the clear intentions of the framers of the Constitution was that the future should not be chained to the tyranny of the past. This sentiment was pervasive in the Revolutionary era. It was intended that future generations would need to make the document work for their own times, and not constantly be second guessing what the deific Founders said. Check out the writings of Madison or Adams or Jefferson or Franklin sometime. They did not want to be deified.
    - dudeinjapan 2y ago
      Alito said "[the Constitution] means what people would have understood it to mean at the time it was written." One can certainly accuse Alito of cynically ascribing modern Republican party politics to the framers, but I don't see a "smoking gun" here. To paraphrase his opinion on Dobbs, ex facto the Constitution grants neither an explicit right nor prohibition to abortion--the framers saw it as a legal "gray area" to give a liberal reading of history--so following the 10th amendment, any regulation of abortion should be devolved to the states. Perhaps it is better if abortion were nationally legalized, but Alito's opinion seems reasonable if we are following the rules to the letter. Re: the Founders, they do not write about the "tyranny of the past" nearly as much as they write about plain ol' "tyranny" of living govts--maybe the closest is Federalist No. 14 or Thomas Jefferson's 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Conversely, we can find tons of examples of the Founders being inspired by classical/traditional sources e.g. Greek (Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch), Roman Cicero, Polybius), the bible, English Common Law etc. It is clear the Founders were neither iconoclasts nor Trotsky-style "Permanent Revolutionaries."

I am likely to believe he is one of those. Guess which one.

throwup238 2y ago

Definitely the vampire squid. SCOTUS hasn't had a real originalist in like 200 years.

philipov 2y ago
You know something the Constitution doesn't say? It doesn't say that you should only interpret the Constitution based on what it says. Therefore, the originalist position is self-contradictory, because it's not contained in the Constitution.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dudeinjapan 2y ago
> …the Constitution doesn't say… that you should only interpret the Constitution based on what it says. So we should interpret it based on the things it doesn’t say?
- philipov 2y ago
  The problem with interpreting the Constitution is that a lot of things are left unsaid or undefined. There is a wealth of writing outside the Constitution that helps clarify what was intended when the text of the Constitution is ambiguous, such as the Federalist Papers. Alito's originalist position is that he can reject using such contemporary sources, that he can reject all precedent, and interpret the ambiguous portions of the Constitution however he wants. --- Incidentally, one of the clear intentions of the framers of the Constitution was that the future should not be chained to the tyranny of the past. This sentiment was pervasive in the Revolutionary era. It was intended that future generations would need to make the document work for their own times, and not constantly be second guessing what the deific Founders said. Check out the writings of Madison or Adams or Jefferson or Franklin sometime. They did not want to be deified.
  - dudeinjapan 2y ago
    Alito said "[the Constitution] means what people would have understood it to mean at the time it was written." One can certainly accuse Alito of cynically ascribing modern Republican party politics to the framers, but I don't see a "smoking gun" here. To paraphrase his opinion on Dobbs, ex facto the Constitution grants neither an explicit right nor prohibition to abortion--the framers saw it as a legal "gray area" to give a liberal reading of history--so following the 10th amendment, any regulation of abortion should be devolved to the states. Perhaps it is better if abortion were nationally legalized, but Alito's opinion seems reasonable if we are following the rules to the letter. Re: the Founders, they do not write about the "tyranny of the past" nearly as much as they write about plain ol' "tyranny" of living govts--maybe the closest is Federalist No. 14 or Thomas Jefferson's 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Conversely, we can find tons of examples of the Founders being inspired by classical/traditional sources e.g. Greek (Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch), Roman Cicero, Polybius), the bible, English Common Law etc. It is clear the Founders were neither iconoclasts nor Trotsky-style "Permanent Revolutionaries."