Cool, thanks for the response. These bring up some other questions, but I've no doubt quizzed you enough. FWIW, the Griswold result appeals to me as a matter of policy, but over the years I've found myself becoming more and more sympathetic to the argument advanced by Trub that the judiciary should aim for predictability and stability, which interest is not helped by always reading constitutional or statutory language in the most modern context.
I think there's just too little inter-conference information provided by the limited college football season to ever provide a satisfying result. I do like the fact that at least we're pretty much guaranteed to see #1 vs #2, even as subjective as the human and computer rankings are -- it's a bit more information than we had before. Although it was badly screwed up this year by matching two teams in conference -- we'd have learned a lot more about relative conference strength if we had gotten to see LSU vs Ok St and Alabama vs Stanford.
all of Luck’s receivers are big, slow, and get zero separation in man coverage.
OTOH, because they're tall (especially the tight ends), he can often get away with just throwing the ball sufficiently high that they're the only ones who can come up with it.
I'll take everyone's word for it that Luck is an amazing QB, but a lot of the ways that he is are not particularly obvious to a casual fan like me. I say this as a Stanford fan, btw.
Well, without diving into the details of what you've written here, it seems to me that you're using an idiosyncratic definition of these terms. Not that Wikipedia is necessarily a reliable authority, but check out this snippet from the page on textualism:
Textualism is often associated with originalism, and is advocated by Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia, who staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."
I think of textualism in the context of opposition to Roe v Wade or Griswold v Connecticut, where constitutional rights were found that certainly don't appear in the text. I'm curious to know what you think of these decisions, given that you (i.e. Burt, not Trub) self-identify as a textualist.
I'd also suggest (wearing my "trained linguist" hat, in case credentials are important) that opposing "the law is the words" vs. "the law is the ideas" isn't really helpful -- words are nothing if not a mechanism for communicating ideas. The disagreement is over how best to interpret them.
I'm confused by the terminology here -- I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't think that "original intent" and "originalism" are the same thing, nor is "originalism" opposed to "textualism". AFAIK Scalia would consider himself both a "textualist", because he believes that constitutional interpretation should be based on the text itself without reference to penumbras and emanations, and an "originalist", because he believes that the meaning of the text should be based on how the framers and their contemporaries would have understood the language. "Original intent" , as I understand it, doesn't refer to a strategy for interpreting the text but suggests that the intention of the legislature should trump the text if the two appear to be at odds -- that's not Scalia's position.
A banker will, when faced with the prospect of evicting a family from their home for late payment, do so readily
A doctor will not, at least consciously, look at a sick person and make a decision about which treatment would be more profitable to determine a course of action
These two aren't really commensurate -- either make the first one something like "A banker will, when presented with a family applying for a mortgage, push the one that offers himself or his institution the greatest profit regardless of what is in their best interests" (and this is hardly self-evident), or make the second "A doctor will not deny treatment to a patient who's likely unable to pay for the service". In the latter case, while there's a cultural and to some extent legal obligation to provide the service regardless of ability to pay, there's also an overall compensation structure that takes that obligation into account.
Yup, that's where I am. I get the sense that my first+last name is a globally unique identifier, so whatever you find on Google is likely referring to me. Do you have some familiarity with the area, or were you just fine-tuning the search?
Re anonymity, I'd prefer that a search on my name not lead here, but I don't care if people here know my name (I'm trusting in the absence of stalker tendencies among the commentariat). So the reversal would not have been a problem if it had been correct.
No problem. I'm assuming you glanced at my email addy a bit too quickly. (If you came up with that from nothing more than my handle, it was a helluva close guess!)
OK, I'm pretty close to agreement here, except that in case 2, I think *both parties* have a responsibility to smooth the interaction -- the speaker should accept that what s/he said has potential offensive overtones and be ready to apologize, *and* the listener should go with the most charitable understanding of the comment and not take offense where none was intended.
"We are Penn State" is the perfect analogue -- it implies a common identity uniting the "speaker" with an entire community organized around a particular common interest. It's a different message from just having a "Penn State" bumper sticker.
If their signs said "We are in the 99%" then what you say would be true. But the signs assert an identity, not just membership. Obviously no one takes them literally, but it's silly to deny the clear implication.
holding onto power was a value more important to them than taking claims of sexual harassment seriously
Well, if that power is being used to further the goals of women's rights and equality of opportunity, and if taking sexual harassment claims seriously involves the possibility of significantly less support going to furthering those goals, then there's at least a colorable argument that muting the criticism is the better approach in the long run.
I had a hard time dealing with Harry's teenage rebelliousness, partly because it was annoying to read but mostly because it seemed unrealistic given the gravity of the whole situation and was an obvious device to keep him once again from consulting the knowledgeable, experienced, powerful adult wizards and just plow forward into his own adventures.
After the first book, she never really found a plausible motivation for Harry to avoid asking for help, but the HP5 solution was particularly unpleasant.
You need to look past what they're saying and focus on what they've done and what they're likely to do. In the case of the political parties, the God talk is a distraction -- how much God-related legislation was passed during the days of the "permanent" Republican majority in the previous decade? My point here is basically the same as above -- this is minor, superficial stuff, certainly not an indication of how "serious" the party is. Basing your party or candidate selection on this isn't much different than the "who would you rather have a beer with" criterion.
Would be nice if there were a minimum number of votes required for election, so that the electorate could have the option of saying they prefer no representation at all to having any of the available bozos represent them.
I dunno, I suspect the conservative base would feel the much same way the liberal base does, at least as far as things actually getting done vs just talked about.
Yeah, there's a difference between letting things roll off your back vs just stifling your natural reaction over and over again until it comes bursting out of every pore, shaking the rafters and sending your kid to therapy.
This book had some good advice, but a lot of it was firmly in the "easier said than done" category.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence
At the heart of clarity in that debate is acknowleding that "one's own" concept of existence is not what's at issue. The being whose existence is in question is a third party.
I also wonder how one decides which choices are "central to personal dignity and autonomy" and which ones are fair game for governmental coercion, and if there's anything more to it beyond personal preference.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “True Faith To Democracy”
Drive-by? Well, it was off-hand, but not meant as an insult. Scalia's the one who said that Thomas doesn't believe in it.
"
The “originalist” also respects stare decisis, i.e., precedent
Tell that to Clarence Thomas. :)
"
Cool, thanks for the response. These bring up some other questions, but I've no doubt quizzed you enough. FWIW, the Griswold result appeals to me as a matter of policy, but over the years I've found myself becoming more and more sympathetic to the argument advanced by Trub that the judiciary should aim for predictability and stability, which interest is not helped by always reading constitutional or statutory language in the most modern context.
On “College Football Bowl Season Preview”
I think there's just too little inter-conference information provided by the limited college football season to ever provide a satisfying result. I do like the fact that at least we're pretty much guaranteed to see #1 vs #2, even as subjective as the human and computer rankings are -- it's a bit more information than we had before. Although it was badly screwed up this year by matching two teams in conference -- we'd have learned a lot more about relative conference strength if we had gotten to see LSU vs Ok St and Alabama vs Stanford.
"
all of Luck’s receivers are big, slow, and get zero separation in man coverage.
OTOH, because they're tall (especially the tight ends), he can often get away with just throwing the ball sufficiently high that they're the only ones who can come up with it.
I'll take everyone's word for it that Luck is an amazing QB, but a lot of the ways that he is are not particularly obvious to a casual fan like me. I say this as a Stanford fan, btw.
On “True Faith To Democracy”
Well, without diving into the details of what you've written here, it seems to me that you're using an idiosyncratic definition of these terms. Not that Wikipedia is necessarily a reliable authority, but check out this snippet from the page on textualism:
Textualism is often associated with originalism, and is advocated by Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia, who staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."
I think of textualism in the context of opposition to Roe v Wade or Griswold v Connecticut, where constitutional rights were found that certainly don't appear in the text. I'm curious to know what you think of these decisions, given that you (i.e. Burt, not Trub) self-identify as a textualist.
I'd also suggest (wearing my "trained linguist" hat, in case credentials are important) that opposing "the law is the words" vs. "the law is the ideas" isn't really helpful -- words are nothing if not a mechanism for communicating ideas. The disagreement is over how best to interpret them.
"
I'm confused by the terminology here -- I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't think that "original intent" and "originalism" are the same thing, nor is "originalism" opposed to "textualism". AFAIK Scalia would consider himself both a "textualist", because he believes that constitutional interpretation should be based on the text itself without reference to penumbras and emanations, and an "originalist", because he believes that the meaning of the text should be based on how the framers and their contemporaries would have understood the language. "Original intent" , as I understand it, doesn't refer to a strategy for interpreting the text but suggests that the intention of the legislature should trump the text if the two appear to be at odds -- that's not Scalia's position.
On “The Mission”
A banker will, when faced with the prospect of evicting a family from their home for late payment, do so readily
A doctor will not, at least consciously, look at a sick person and make a decision about which treatment would be more profitable to determine a course of action
These two aren't really commensurate -- either make the first one something like "A banker will, when presented with a family applying for a mortgage, push the one that offers himself or his institution the greatest profit regardless of what is in their best interests" (and this is hardly self-evident), or make the second "A doctor will not deny treatment to a patient who's likely unable to pay for the service". In the latter case, while there's a cultural and to some extent legal obligation to provide the service regardless of ability to pay, there's also an overall compensation structure that takes that obligation into account.
"
Yup, that's where I am. I get the sense that my first+last name is a globally unique identifier, so whatever you find on Google is likely referring to me. Do you have some familiarity with the area, or were you just fine-tuning the search?
Re anonymity, I'd prefer that a search on my name not lead here, but I don't care if people here know my name (I'm trusting in the absence of stalker tendencies among the commentariat). So the reversal would not have been a problem if it had been correct.
"
No problem. I'm assuming you glanced at my email addy a bit too quickly. (If you came up with that from nothing more than my handle, it was a helluva close guess!)
"
That would be my alter ego's name if I were my uncle's son...
"
3. Because your "opposite" alter ego's name would be substantially more difficult to pronounce.
On “The Costas Rant”
OK, I'm pretty close to agreement here, except that in case 2, I think *both parties* have a responsibility to smooth the interaction -- the speaker should accept that what s/he said has potential offensive overtones and be ready to apologize, *and* the listener should go with the most charitable understanding of the comment and not take offense where none was intended.
On “Democracy and the rhetoric of protests: A response to Will Wilkinson and Julian Sanchez”
"We are Penn State" is the perfect analogue -- it implies a common identity uniting the "speaker" with an entire community organized around a particular common interest. It's a different message from just having a "Penn State" bumper sticker.
"
If their signs said "We are in the 99%" then what you say would be true. But the signs assert an identity, not just membership. Obviously no one takes them literally, but it's silly to deny the clear implication.
On “Census II : Map Graph!”
South-central Connecticut.
On “Herman Cain, Bill Clinton, and the Myth of He Said/She Said”
Well, if that power is being used to further the goals of women's rights and equality of opportunity, and if taking sexual harassment claims seriously involves the possibility of significantly less support going to furthering those goals, then there's at least a colorable argument that muting the criticism is the better approach in the long run.
On “Do Fantasy Books Really Need To Be As Long And Meandering As My Posts?”
I had a hard time dealing with Harry's teenage rebelliousness, partly because it was annoying to read but mostly because it seemed unrealistic given the gravity of the whole situation and was an obvious device to keep him once again from consulting the knowledgeable, experienced, powerful adult wizards and just plow forward into his own adventures.
After the first book, she never really found a plausible motivation for Harry to avoid asking for help, but the HP5 solution was particularly unpleasant.
On “In God We Trust! (In the GOP? Not so much…)”
You need to look past what they're saying and focus on what they've done and what they're likely to do. In the case of the political parties, the God talk is a distraction -- how much God-related legislation was passed during the days of the "permanent" Republican majority in the previous decade? My point here is basically the same as above -- this is minor, superficial stuff, certainly not an indication of how "serious" the party is. Basing your party or candidate selection on this isn't much different than the "who would you rather have a beer with" criterion.
"
Would be nice if there were a minimum number of votes required for election, so that the electorate could have the option of saying they prefer no representation at all to having any of the available bozos represent them.
"
"Now that they're all senators, they've really got the chance
To give the public...... a song and dance!"
[Adapted from a Tom Lehrer song about George Murphy]
"
I dunno, I suspect the conservative base would feel the much same way the liberal base does, at least as far as things actually getting done vs just talked about.
"
Yeah, there's a difference between letting things roll off your back vs just stifling your natural reaction over and over again until it comes bursting out of every pore, shaking the rafters and sending your kid to therapy.
This book had some good advice, but a lot of it was firmly in the "easier said than done" category.
"
In that case, what you may really be doing is picking the one who knows which lies you prefer to hear.
On “Of Two Minds At Once”
At the heart of clarity in that debate is acknowleding that "one's own" concept of existence is not what's at issue. The being whose existence is in question is a third party.
I also wonder how one decides which choices are "central to personal dignity and autonomy" and which ones are fair game for governmental coercion, and if there's anything more to it beyond personal preference.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.