Dewey Cheatem Undhow, step in here for a second.

[pravnik]

Yeah, all this is fine and good, but to what degree was Ezra Pound’s sociological jurisprudence influenced by Oliver Wendall Holmes’ legal realism, and how were those views influental in the Warren court’s evolution in Sweatt v. Painter, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas? Hah? Hah? Answer me that, ya sonsabitches!!

[Guinastasia]

Why does everyone call the OP Karl?

[Frank]

@Guinastasia

Why does everyone call the OP Karl?

Got your Karl right here.

He’s started 366 threads!

[Giraffe]

Incidentally, that thread was the location of the post by Uvula Donor that still to this day makes me laugh out loud whenever I think of it:

@Uvula Donor

@Jurph

Yeah, what the hell’s up with that “Latex Division” thing, anyway, Karl?

Lots of douchebags are made of latex.

Hilarious!

[GuanoLad]

@Giraffe

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.

My head hurts.

[DrDeth]

@Kel Varnsen - Latex Division

In a past thread you stated that I flatly wrong when I said

You could have just stopped there… :wally

[Scruloose]

@GuanoLad

My head hurts.

Heh. Here’s what I read:

@Giraffe

So, you’re saying Scalia is a something, not a some other thing or another term I don’t understand. Dewey is saying that Scalia is a term I don’t understand which is a subset of some other thing, but not that first thing. In your quote, Scalia says that the second something is a type of that last thing, but emphasizes that they’re not the same and that he is not a second something. No first something.

Or something like that.

I don’t deserve to be here.

[threemae]

Ummm, my head hurts, but I pretty sure that what I got out of this thread is that perhaps pitting someone for having an earnest disagreement with you without resorting to ad hominem attacks or insults in another forum doesn’t deserve a pitting.

[Muffin]

So Kel, how were your first term grades?

[Polycarp]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

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.

But, Dewey, you’re applying the term “strict constructionist” in a textualist way, while Kel, following Scalia, is applying it in a hyperliteralist way!