Read on Twitter
there's nothing to love about ACB's confirmation to SCOTUS, i know, but one silver lining is that all sorts of folks are now talking about how to interpret texts and who gets to interpret them (1/).
for example, here's a piece from @guardian about ACB and her version of originalism (2/) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/amy-coney-barrett-originalist-but-what-does-it-mean
during the hearings @NPR talked about how ACB understood originalism, too (3/) https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation/2020/10/13/923215778/barrett-an-originalist-says-meaning-of-constitution-doesn-t-change-over-time
what's great about these pieces is that lots of people are getting in on the convo about meaning and interpretation of authoritative texts.
and lots of people *should* get in on these convos, because, well, authoritative texts affect peoples' lives (4/).
and lots of people *should* get in on these convos, because, well, authoritative texts affect peoples' lives (4/).
but then we get this piece from the chronicle - the title of which speaks for itself (5/) https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholars-who-attack-originalism-should-know-what-it-means?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in
to be fair, the author says he's not telling folks who aren't legal scholars to "stay in their lane." he just wants us to be careful about misrepresenting originalism before entering into critique of it.
cool, cool. i get that impulse. (6/)
cool, cool. i get that impulse. (6/)
i get that impulse and i'm going to take his advice. he says that we humanists should stop talking about the founders' intent and start talking about "original public meaning." (7/)
so, let's do that.
so, let's do that.
let's take the federalist society's own definition of "original public meaning." we should prioritize public meaning because the constitution was ratified in an "intensely public" way in town meetings and ratifying conventions. (8/)
according to the video, the meaning of the constitution was negotiated by the public, that the document was authored by the public, and therefore, "terms in the constitution must be understood in their ordinary meanings." (9/)
the word "public" does so much heavy lifting here.
who was considered part of the "public" when the constitution was ratified? and who got to negotiate its meaning? to ratify it?
if you said white property-owning men, you've got bingo. (10/)
who was considered part of the "public" when the constitution was ratified? and who got to negotiate its meaning? to ratify it?
if you said white property-owning men, you've got bingo. (10/)
but notice: the federalist society's video assumes you know what "public" means, and it assumes you think "public" is an inclusive, "democratic" term.
it assumes words and the discourses they create are neutral, in other words. (11/)
it assumes words and the discourses they create are neutral, in other words. (11/)
same thing with this chronicle piece: "skepticism about meaning counts not against originalist theories of law, but against law itself," oliver traldi writes.
the underlying assumption is that "the law" is a self-evident public good, and that we all know as much. (12/)
the underlying assumption is that "the law" is a self-evident public good, and that we all know as much. (12/)
except we *don't* know as much. and i'll leave other folks to talk about things like racial disparities in application of the law and sentencing. (13/)
though, hey, here's a quick glance: https://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/racial-disparity/
though, hey, here's a quick glance: https://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/racial-disparity/
what's my point? my point is that this assumption - of shared, self-evident value of things like "public" and "the law" is problems like woah.
the way we understand these concepts has effects on all americans, legal scholars or not. academics or not. (14/)
the way we understand these concepts has effects on all americans, legal scholars or not. academics or not. (14/)
and *that's* the danger of insisting folks speak the language or know the philosophy before offering critique in this case. doing so excludes the folks whose very lives are structured by the interpretation of this text. (15/)
we're accountable to the communities we read and interpret within when we read and interpret texts.
there's a lot to say about that, but i won't get into it here. but stay tuned, because we've got an amazing pair of panels on interpretive ethics coming soon.
there's a lot to say about that, but i won't get into it here. but stay tuned, because we've got an amazing pair of panels on interpretive ethics coming soon.
in the meantime, i feel like maybe *all* of us should continue talking about how to read and interpret the constitution and other authoritative texts. as the folks at @Sacred_Writes say, "if you're gonna be smart, be #smartinpublic. (17/17)
