Yep, I'm picking on Stanley Fish again. His newest column argues that Constitutional Theory doesn't matter, at least when we're discussing Supreme Court justices. He goes through some first year law school talk (I know, I'm there) to back it up.This is the equivalent of writing a column about how the Bloods and Crypts don't really like red and blue clothes because they find them stylish. Everyone knows this. Hell, even clever-mediocrity-as-intellectualism think tank Slate.com employs Dahlia Lithwick to write about this issue. "Strict constructionist" is code for "maybe I'll vote against Roe v. Wade".
Perhaps I should be easier on Fish. After all, he's telling me that I shouldn't care about something I already don't care about, which is always nice to hear. Coincidentally, that's often the message of Slate articles as well.
3 comments:
Wow, is it just me or does Stanley Fish have a disturbing resemblance to Antonin Scalia?
Nice edit. This version of your comment sounds jazzy and hip.
Hey, you had time to post this but not your #8 pick? We're sweating with anticipation here!
Post a Comment