603
Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
603 points (97.6% liked)
News
36569 readers
401 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can confirm, they are laughed at in law schools. They clique up. None of the actual smart kids like them. The smartest federalist society members are just smart enough to be dangerous. Mostly religious types. Not very diverse.
They basically believe that the law can only be understood in the original sense that it was written in, yes? Instead of the law being living it is dead.
Very basically, yes.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dictionary is, a snapshot of a language in time. The meaning of words change over time. "Nice" used to mean stupid in English.
They believe they can divine the intentions of the dead, that they hear the voices of dead people, and can know what they mean.
They also believe that from the writings of a collective, enacted in the form of statutes, they can discern a single, unified intention. This is of course completely ridiculous, but to hear them tell it, they figured out a way to interpret law "objectively," which is also of course ridiculous.
I'm sure they are nice people.
I am pleased with what you accomplished today
Thanks. I know very little about this stuff. My understanding is that there is an order to understand the law. Canons of construction, right? So wouldn't that mean that the intent behind the law can only be invoked if the text as written is open to multiple understanding? If that is the case how can they invoke that if the text can never be ambiguous?
If the text must only be looked at exactly as written you can't claim it could be ambiguous. If you can't claim it is ambiguous then you can't worry about what they really meant to say. Guess I am lost. It seems like they are arguing for a method that if fully applied would mean the method can't be applied.
What mistake am I making? Also thanks again.
You're looking for logical consistency where there isn't any. It's all made up.
There is no one right or wrong way to interpret law. For every canon of statutory construction, there is an equal and opposite canon. My textbook called them thrusts and parries.
Conservatives believe in a plain meaning approach: follow the literal text no matter what because the cold hard text is the best evidence of the legislative intent. If the result is obviously absurd and offensive to justice, too bad, it's the legislature's job to fix the statute, not the court's. Conservatives hate they idea of any power to do affirmative justice resting with the courts, they want it in Congress where their rich benefactors and buy congresspersons.
The problem with that is that legislatures are messy and words are imprecise. The words represent individual understandings and compromises of single members and caucuses, not the whole body. Even when Conservatives say they are following the original text / plain meaning, they are still doing subjective interpretation, just without admitting it.
Purposivism is the idea that statutes should be interpreted and applied by courts with reference to the purpose of the law and common sense.
But a constitution is not a dictionary. It is designed to restrict the current majority, if the majority redefines what the words in the constitution mean it is no restriction.
What about Scalia?
What about him?