# Dewey Cheatem Undhow, step in here for a second. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 28, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155 "2005-01-28T18:55:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aeb1de/32.png) [@Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kel_Varnsen_Latex_Division)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/1 "2005-01-28T18:55:50Z")
In a past thread you stated that I flatly wrong when I said the Justice Scalia was not a strict contructionist. You told me to read his book. Well let’s just see what he has to say in his book: > [@](#): > > Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict contrustionist. A text should not be construed strictly… page 23 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287438&page=2&pp=50&highlight=strict+construct\*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287438&page=2&pp=50&highlight=strict+construct%2A) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/2 "2005-01-28T19:08:59Z")
Yeah? And Richard Nixon famously stated, “I am not a crook.” Do you believe _everything_ you read? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/3 "2005-01-28T19:22:00Z")
From the linked thread: > [@Dewey Cheatum Undhow](#): > > > [@Karl Varnsen](#): > > > > The one I’ll name is Scalia. He is not a strict constrctionist. He is an originalist which is not the same thing as a strict constructionist. Nor is he a textualist. Again, I ask somone to name an influential strict constructionist. > > On this you are flatly wrong. Scalia is indeed a textualist, widely considered a subset of strict constructionism. He is absolutely not an originalist (which is the other major school of strict constructionism), and indeed specifically opposes seeking legislative intent from sources other than the text of the document being interpreted. So, you’re saying Scalia is an orginalist, not a strict constructionist or a textualist. **Dewey** is saying that Scalia is a textualist which is a subset of strict constructionism, but not an originalist. In your quote, Scalia says that strict constructionism is a type of textualism, but emphasizes that they’re not the same and that he is not a strict constructionist. Since you only supplied a partial quote, it doesn’t say what Scalia actually thinks he is. Of course, a quick Google search shows that in [Judicial adherence to the text of our basic law: a theory of constitutional interpretation](http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is225ScaliaTheoryConstlInterpretation.shtml), Scalia says: > [@Antonin Scalia](#): > > I belong to a school, a small but hardy school, called “textualists,” or “originalists.” That school used to be “constitutional orthodoxy” in the United States. > > The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, giving the constitution the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. > > You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an original- ist. So really, you started this thread over nothing more than a semantic nitpick, i.e. whether **Dewey** was wrong when he said textualism was in a fact a subset of strict constructionism. Which is pretty fucking sad – why couldn’t you just argue this incredibly interesting point in the original thread with, like, facts and stuff? Are you going to start a pit thread anytime anyone anywhere disagrees with you about anything? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/4 "2005-01-28T19:30:19Z")
What **Giraffe** said. Although I am pleased that you took my advice to read his book. If only some of the other thread participants would be so wise as to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/5 "2005-01-28T19:31:21Z")
Is it correct to call Scalia a jerk? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/6 "2005-01-28T19:40:36Z")
[Link to the book](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691004005/qid=1106941421/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-5665964-8219943?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Thanks to Amazon’s “search the text” feature, you can quickly find page 23 (and just as importantly, pages 24 and following) to see the full context of the quotation **Kel** is offering. Scalia is apparently using “strict constructionism” in this sense to mean a kind of hyperliteralism, and I agree with him that that is the wrong approach. I do not think, however, that all people who self-describe as strict constructionists are hyperliteralists, and I think that Scalia’s brand of textualism falls cleanly into the sets of constitutional theories commonly described as “strict constructionist.” So shame on Scalia for taking such a, uh, strict view of what is meant by “strict constructionism.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/7 "2005-01-28T19:41:16Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Is it correct to call Scalia a jerk? Strictly. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/8 "2005-01-28T20:16:45Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Which is pretty fucking sad – why couldn’t you just argue this incredibly interesting point in the original thread with, like, facts and stuff? Are you going to start a pit thread anytime anyone anywhere disagrees with you about anything? [Why stop now](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=289895)? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/9 "2005-01-28T20:32:49Z")
Count me amoung those who are puzzled by this bizarre non-pitting. **Kel** isn’t calling anyone out or even complaining about something; he’s just disagreeing with something **Dewey** said, with a cite. Why in the world is this its in own thread, and why is that thread in the Pit? ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/10 "2005-01-28T21:10:32Z")
Maybe he forgot to lock his keyboard and someone else typed the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aeb1de/32.png) [@Kel\_Varnsen\_Latex\_Division](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kel_Varnsen_Latex_Division)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/11 "2005-01-28T21:14:32Z")
I am pitting Dewey for saying I was flatly wrong, when I was clearly right. PS - I thought we were not supposed to post to old threads. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/12 "2005-01-28T21:29:22Z")
> [@Kel Varnsen - Latex Division](#): > > PS - I thought we were not supposed to post to old threads. Less than three months is not considered “old”. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/13 "2005-01-28T21:37:21Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Less than three months is not considered “old”. It sure isn’t. Even if it was, my understanding was that you’re not supposed to _bump_ old threads. You can link to them all you want. I suspect **Karl** is just ashamed of his past. I’m not sure why – he seems to be just as much of a dingbat here in the present. “He said I was wrong in Great Debates and I wasn’t!” ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/14 "2005-01-28T21:53:28Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > It sure isn’t. Even if it was, my understanding was that you’re not supposed to _bump_ old threads. You can link to them all you want. I believe he was referring to the GD thread, not my link. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/15 "2005-01-28T21:55:45Z")
This is like a Family Guy style English driveby. “Oh Nigel?!?” “Yes?” “I disagree!!!” ~zoom~ ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/16 "2005-01-28T22:22:50Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Which is pretty fucking sad – why couldn’t you just argue this incredibly interesting point in the original thread with, like, facts and stuff? Well, probably because he’s a dumbass. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/17 "2005-01-28T23:16:33Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > I believe he was referring to the GD thread, not my link. Holy shit, I didn’t even notice the date on the GD thread. **Karl** , you actually started a Pit thread because _two months ago_ someone said you were wrong about a semantic detail and now you think you’ve found evidence that you’re right? Who cares?? Have you never heard of a useful little concept called Letting Things Go? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/18 "2005-01-28T23:22:20Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Have you never heard of a useful little concept called Letting Things Go? Clearly, in the Latex Division, they have sticky hands that prevent such. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/19 "2005-01-28T23:53:44Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Clearly, in the Latex Division, they have sticky hands that prevent such. Must be a defect in their gloves. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155/20 "2005-01-28T23:59:58Z")
> [@Kel Varnsen - Latex Division](#): > > I am pitting Dewey for saying I was flatly wrong, when I was clearly right. God, I hate to continue this semantic quibble, but again, you were clearly wrong. You said Scalia was not a textualist. Yet he self-applies the label, as per the quotation provided by **Giraffe**. Furthermore, promoting a textualist approach is the entire point of his book, which in turn is entirely about his interpretive philosophy. You also said Scalia was not a strict constructionist, and point to a partial quotation from his book to support that contention. But a quick glance at the entire paragraph in question makes clear that Scalia is not using “strict constructionism” in its most common sense. He is using it to mean something akin to hyperliteralism, and I’m not aware of any self-described strict constructionists who subscribe to a hyperliteral reading of the constitution. So not only are you foolishly starting a Pit thread on a two-month old semantic quibble, you’re also still on the wrong side of that quibble. I stand by my “flatly wrong” assertion. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheatem-undhow-step-in-here-for-a-second/287155.md?page=2)