From: [email protected]
I kind of get your point, but I do not think you are being fair to my original post. To repeat what I originally said, which you have not addressed, is the silliness of someone who does not believe in textualism criticizing Scalia for not being sufficiently textualist. It would be like Ted Cruz criticizing Bernie Sanders for being insufficiently progressive. Why should we pay attention to such a criticism? If the point is that because Scalia strayed, textualism is problematic, that is a real criticism, but that was not the author’s point. To the contrary, the criticism only makes sense if textualism is feasible, which the author presumably rejects. ============== That's akin to asserting that atheists cannot criticize theists on their own terms because, well, they're atheists. Perhaps Scalia's clerks are to blame for the lapses of fealty to textualism [a polyvalent and trivial term if ever there was one]. Motivated reasoning is a nasty problem in lots of legal writing and it won't be going away any time soon. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1091730982/inline http://journal.sjdm.org/13/13313/jdm13313.pdf
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
