Thursday, October 4, 2007

Umm... what?

Now Megan is posting about how she thinks legal terms had been parsed in the past. Upcoming, Megan's presentation of her theory of dark matter as the real source of dust.
But first, what the fuck? Rather than quote Megan, I'm going to quote the commenter Francis, because he did my job for me.

"living constitution" proponents seem to be retreating to the notion that constitutional interpretations ought to have a least a tenuous relationship to the underlying text

and ANOTHER strawman gets set ablaze. Please point me to your extensive series of sources that living constitution proponents (like my old lawprof Erwin Chemerinsky -- he's been in the news lately) previously believes that Constitutional interpretations need not bear even a tenuous relationship to the underlying text. Oh wait -- the detachment between text and meaning is done these days by the so-called conservative justices. Look into 11th Amendment jurisprudence.

what utter BS this post is. This is the kind of thing I see in comments at the Volokh Conspiracy, that end up being supported only by a few out-of-context comments made by various Sup.Ct. justices regarding the death penalty.
All I can add to that is the question of whether Megan had the barest idea what she was actually talking about. The post itself is so vague and incoherent one has to wonder.

No comments: