HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "To put it bluntly, the w...

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 08:26 PM

"To put it bluntly, the whole premise of originalism is nonsense in that it pretends to make the wor


?s=21


The Atlantic
@TheAtlantic
"To put it bluntly, the whole premise of originalism is nonsense in that it pretends to make the work of the Supreme Court look straightforward and mechanical," @SenAngusKing and @HC_Richardson write:

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Philosophy Doesn’t Hold Up to Scrutiny
theatlantic.com
https://t.co/znupTwbiuA?amp=1

22 replies, 1150 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply "To put it bluntly, the whole premise of originalism is nonsense in that it pretends to make the wor (Original post)
soothsayer Oct 25 OP
Walleye Oct 25 #1
SheltieLover Oct 25 #3
uriel1972 Oct 25 #9
grantcart Oct 25 #12
Walleye Oct 25 #14
grantcart Oct 25 #15
Walleye Oct 25 #16
grantcart Oct 26 #21
TreasonousBastard Oct 25 #2
misanthrope Oct 25 #4
uriel1972 Oct 25 #11
mobeau69 Oct 25 #5
Thomas Hurt Oct 25 #6
Blue Owl Oct 25 #7
struggle4progress Oct 25 #8
uriel1972 Oct 25 #10
former9thward Oct 25 #13
struggle4progress Oct 25 #18
Blue_true Oct 25 #17
uriel1972 Oct 25 #19
uriel1972 Oct 25 #20
Blue_true Oct 26 #22

Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 08:29 PM

1. I think they confuse the constitution with biblical scripture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 08:34 PM

3. This!👆

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:41 PM

9. they play pretty fast and loose with that too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:48 PM

12. Actually the inverse is true, at least for actual Biblical scholarship.

the

The scholarship on scripture at established mainline seminaries that follow the rules of peer review scholarship is very unsentimental and very solid. Over decades the use of "higher criticisms" has established a rigorous use of rational analysis to examine not only what was said but what the real context was, and what was literary license. Just to give an obvious example it is widely accepted that the famous "Sermon on the Mount" could never have been given as written in Matthew for two obvious reasons: none of the other sources, including Mark who would have had a more immediate juxtaposition to the most original sources knew nothing about it and, even more significantly, Matthew has an elaborate structure and style for the entire book and he crafted various sayings of Jesus into a unified single address for pedagogical reasons.

I attended Princeton Seminary and am stunned when I hear people talk about the great scholarship of Scalia and his originalism because it has a very low scholarly level. I remember one hapless student who made a similar claim about somsething in the Old Testament on one of the first classes in a large class after the Professor had pointed out 20 reasons why the passage might be valuable as a theological point and true in a metaphysical sense but was not literally true. The student didn't take the hint and asked "well couldn't it be true". The professor then spent 30 minutes ruthlessly reducing this numskull into a pathetic puddle of cells, mocking him and ridiculing him for his sentimental approach to scripture.

Scalia's approach is very similar using superficial interpretations of words to get the original text to match the modern conservative expectation of what they think the founders should have thought. Nothing is more obvious on this point than the pathetic gymnastics that they go through on the second amendment.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:57 PM

14. I do find it interesting. But I was thinking of evangelicals

Who say the Bible is the word of the Lord. I have a lot of respect for actual scholars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 10:21 PM

15. I understand your impression but in fact even "Evangelical Scholars" have given up on the issue


For clarity you can be a rational reader of the New Testament and not accept any of the common understanding of the 'miracles' in the New Testament and still believe that the Bible is the "Word of God".

To give a simple example in the Sermon on the Mount (which again would have been a collection of sayings of Jesus reworked into a grand presentation) is the story of the miracle of the 'loaves and fishes' which is widely known and understood to be some miracle of physics in today's world. That was not the intent of Matthew. During the revolutionary time in Palestine dissatisfied Jews would walk up into the hills surrounding Jerusalem to discuss the meaning of being a Jew in a Roman colony. By walking into the hills they could escape scrutiny of the Romans and engage in lively free speech.

People would come for an hour or two and then head back. The picture that Matthew is painting is that when Jesus was in one corner speaking he attracted a large crowd who stayed and listened for hours. While some of the families prepared for a longer stay and packed a picnic others did not and stayed until hunger had set in and would have been famished by the time they returned from the hill.

Jesus had been talking about brotherhood and compassion and using the circumstances to make the point took all of the disciple food and put it into a basket and asked people who had plenty to put some food in and others to take what they needed. The miracle is that Jesus was able to open people's hearts so that when the basket came back around there was the same amount of food in the basket. It was never written to mean that Jesus manufactured food by magic.

There wasn't a miracle of production of molecules but the changing of hearts.

What you are referring to was the issue of "inerrant literal" understanding of the Bible which actually started at Princeton Seminary about a hundred years ago. After a couple of decades it was obvious that the Bible was never meant to be a literal document and Princeton went through a massive civil war and threw out the "literalists". Fuller Seminary was established as an Evangelical Seminary that would never move from holding to an inerrant interpretation. In time however Fuller couldn't deny that it was, obviously, not written to be taken literally and adopted the same higher criticisms that Princeton initiated.

What you are referring to are Evangelical, Pentecostal an Fundamentalist Bible schools that operate independently and at a comic book level of bible study. Mainstream Evangelical seminaries follow to a greater or lesser extent the basic principles of Biblical scholarship.















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 10:32 PM

16. Thanks for the explanation. it's kind of reassuring

I read somewhere that the sermon on the mount had been spoken by Pharisees at least 100 years before the birth of Christ. And that the golden rule was originally stated as “ don’t do to others that which is hateful to you.” Somehow that seems more reasonable to me than “ do unto others”. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me on this. Took my mind off the political conflict for a minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 26, 2020, 12:02 AM

21. The Golden Rule was in widespread use before Jesus


The Sermon on the Mount is unique to Matthew. Each Gospel had a unique focus. Luke was an effort to explain Christianity to Roman officials so they wouldn't fear and persecute them.

Matthew is a very sophisticated book that is meant to be a teaching catechism for the new Church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 08:30 PM

2. In another thread on this I said that originalism is not such a bad thing when put into the context.

of who the framers thought we were when they set up the nation.

It just should not rule the day any more than socialism should. And it should not be a majority holding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 08:36 PM

4. In our system of stare decisis

the interpretation of the Constitution is in effect "legislating from the bench."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthrope (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:44 PM

11. that's the thing...

any interpretation of a document is an interpretation. They can't prove the validity of their own interpretation and the founders aren't answering their mobile phones or emails..,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 08:46 PM

5. Good piece, soothsayer. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:29 PM

6. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny...sure if the agenda is a reasonable and well thought out philiosophy...

This woman is not out to champion a judicial philosophy. She is out to turn the SC into a far right ecclesiastical court for a christian theocracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:32 PM

7. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:40 PM

8. I'll believe in the sincerity of the originalists when they interpret the First Amendment as

protecting materials printed on the old hand-operated presses and interpret the Second Amendment as protecting your right to own a muzzle-loader and ramrod

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:42 PM

10. fair enough...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 09:55 PM

13. Do you think the First Amendment should protect more than hand operated presses?

If so. I assume by the logic of your argument it should protect modern weapons as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 11:05 PM

18. "originalism" is an incoherent hypocritical mish-mash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 10:42 PM

17. Originalists miss the reason why the Founders made the Constitution amendable.

They were wise enough to realize that societies changed. They were also wise enough to recognize that legislating society from a religious point of view is a grotesgue mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #17)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 11:21 PM

19. Oh I bet the "Originalists"do understand and hate it

Thry ecist only to find ways to subvert and distort the intentions of the Founders for their own hypocrisy addled beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 25, 2020, 11:21 PM

20. they exist*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 26, 2020, 06:01 PM

22. True. The lack of conformity to the Founders intentions does appear purposeful.

Joe Biden made a beautiful statement on 60 Minutes in relation to systemic racism. He pointed out that our country never fully lived up to it’s founding principles, but that over time we have gotten closer to living them (women’s rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights. Then he made the point that Trump wants to take us back to the 1950s in regards to all the rights that we have gained, to take them away from some people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread