f/k/a . . . the archives

June 27, 2005

noodling lawfully

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 5:52 pm








10 PM bonus: from our Comment Section:

 


record heat

the ice cream man

adds a gallon to the radiator

 

                        Ed Markowski 

 

 

You don’t need me to provide you with legal commentary on today’s important

Supreme Court opinions.  There’s plenty at SCOTUSblog, of course, including

Ten Commandments discussion and Grokster discussion by weblog heavyweights.

 

“Commandments”  I do want to agree with Ann Althouse’s assessment:  the outcomes in the

two Ten Commandments cases make sense — as a matter of logic and of legal judgment. 

Like Justice Breyer (my Antitrust professor 30 years ago), I believe that judges very

often need to “judge” in constitutional law cases — they’re not merely answering True/

False questions (with brightline rules); they need to reason and explain with essays and 

even footnotes.

 

Prof. Althouse is also correct in noting that the results in these two cases are not really

all that important. (Similarly, I pointed out recently that icons are not what makes

religion important in our lives or our nation’s history.)   Ann asks for calm and tolerance:


Everyone needs to learn to get along, and those who want to purify   

things too much don’t impress me. Sure, they’ll be put out if the government

wins in these cases. I don’t think people who take great offense easily should

be driving the outcomes…. I think most atheists … and many religious people …

accept and even enjoy seeing evidence of other religions around them. It’s part

of art and history and culture — part of the beauty of the world that we live in

(either by the grace of God or by pure, weird chance).”   (via SCOTUSblog)

 

 Eugene Volokh reposts a piece discussing how many of the Ten Commandments   CarlinPorkChops 

are legally enforceable under modern American law.  Only three, with lots of

exceptions and ironies (do you know which ones?).  Prof. V asks “can you imagine

a law prohibiting coveting?”  In When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, while

winnowing down the Ten Commandments to two (be honest and be loyal), George

Carlin notes (at 17): “THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. This

one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy

going.”




  • Finally, I disagree with Prof. Bainbridge that “one might almost

    characterize these ultra-fine [religion clause] distinctions as 

    being Pharisaic.” “Pharisaic” means being “Hypocritically self-righteous  

    and condemnatory” or “marked by hypocritical censorious self-

    righteousness.”  Such descriptions seem to apply far more

    to “religionist” politicians, believers and webloggers, who

    want to force the public display of their religious icons on

    all Americans, despite the First Amendment, than to Court

    members who are trying to find a moderate test that should 

    be acceptable to all fair-minded Americans. 


afterthought (7PM):  To paraphrase Prof. B: “I hate it when Steve

corrects his mistakes.”  Prof. Bainbridge has changed “Pharisaic”

to “Scholastic.”  Like the Commentor BG,  I don’t think “scholastic”

fits well either.  However, as I have a hard enough time finding

apt adjectives for Prof. Yabut and my other weblog alter egoes, I’m

going to let Steve do his own thesaurus surfing — especially, since

I have no idea which meaning of scholastic is being suggested over

at ProfBillboard.com. 

 

Irving Hexam’s Concise Dictionary of Religion, gives the following

definition of Scholastic, which seems inapt to me when describing

today’s Court decisions:


 ooh “SCHOLASTIC: derived from SCHOLASTICISM it 

became a term of abuse following the PROTESTANT

REFORMATION implying dead arguments based on

LOGIC unrelated to real life.”

 

“tinyredcheck”  The Justices of the Supreme Court are surely heading for summer

vacation getaways.  Prof. Chang is already on vacation, but Upstate

Dim Sum journal keeps working for us in his absence:

 






 

wildflowers

on both sides of the road

I miss the exit

 

 

 

 






waterfall

she pulls me

away from the edge

 

 

 

 

mountain lake –

basking

in your reflection

 

 

 

exit   Yu Chang – Upstate Dim Sum (2005/I)

 

 

 






  • by dagosan                                               










one bee and

a gardenful of roses –

on line at the ice cream truck

 

 

[June 27, 2005]

 


 

tiny check  dagosan is taking it kinda easy today, too, but Your Editor 

has culled out some of dagosan’s clunkers and compiled


collection for your perusal and enjoyment. 

fishing pole  potluck


tiny check Jonathan B. Wilson at Point of Law informed us yesterday that

Georgia has legalized noodling.  We’re not presented with the definition of

noodling, but Wikipedia explains it is a mostly-Southern sport in which

one uses ones hands to catch catfish.    Being a Northerner and a lawyer,  I

would have tried using my noodle, and thereby put myself in even greater

physical jeopardy than the fellows who stick their hands and arms into catfish

holes as bait. 






 


in spring rain
chasing the elusive fish…
dog on the shore




 







the fish
unaware of the bucket…
a cool evening

 




heat shimmers–
in front of the noodle shop
a chopstick mountain



ISSA  translated by David G. Lanoue       

                                                                                                                           spiltBucket

 

 

6 Comments

  1. Speaking without having the stature of others in the conversation has not slowed me down before, so here goes:

    If dictionaries define Pharisaic as what you indicated, so be it. To retain the meaning as Bainbridge intended (quite appropriately I would say) then, change the sentence to say “in the tradition of the Pharisees”. The meaning that we are going for calls out the SCOTUS behaviour of using fine points and distinctions to address the formation of governing rules in a dogmatic way. This is clearly what happened.

    Now, let’s look at what scho

    Comment by BG — June 27, 2005 @ 6:46 pm

  2. Speaking without having the stature of others in the conversation has not slowed me down before, so here goes:

    If dictionaries define Pharisaic as what you indicated, so be it. To retain the meaning as Bainbridge intended (quite appropriately I would say) then, change the sentence to say “in the tradition of the Pharisees”. The meaning that we are going for calls out the SCOTUS behaviour of using fine points and distinctions to address the formation of governing rules in a dogmatic way. This is clearly what happened.

    Now, let’s look at what scho

    Comment by BG — June 27, 2005 @ 6:46 pm

  3. Consider the dictionary definition, starting with the noun:
    Pharisee
    noun Pharisees

    1. A member of the Pharisees, an ancient Jewish sect whose strict interpretation of the Mosaic law led to an obsessive concern with the rules covering the details of everyday life.
    2. derog
    Anyone more careful of the outward forms than of the spirit of religion.
    3. derog
    A self-righteous or hypocritical person.
    Derivative: Pharisaic
    adj

    Comment by BG — June 27, 2005 @ 6:54 pm

  4. Consider the dictionary definition, starting with the noun:
    Pharisee
    noun Pharisees

    1. A member of the Pharisees, an ancient Jewish sect whose strict interpretation of the Mosaic law led to an obsessive concern with the rules covering the details of everyday life.
    2. derog
    Anyone more careful of the outward forms than of the spirit of religion.
    3. derog
    A self-righteous or hypocritical person.
    Derivative: Pharisaic
    adj

    Comment by BG — June 27, 2005 @ 6:54 pm

  5. Thanks for writing, BG.   In my understanding, the problem with the Pharisees is that (1) outward appearances were stressed so much, (2) they tried so hard to appear holy publically; and (3) strict application of rules (many of which on their face have nothing to do with living a good, moral life) seemed more important than the spirit that was at the heart of the religion.
    In the context of the Ten Commandments and other Religion Clause cases, the Justices are are not applying or making rules for the sake of rules; instead, they appear to be trying to meet the spirit of the Constitutional guarantees and of our national history and culture.   That cannot be done with simplistic rules, unless you have the one clear rule that the First Amendment seems to imply: nothing done by the Government should establish or favor religion.  Once you try to be neutral to both religion and non-religion freedoms, things have to get complicated.
    Those who insist on having the relgious icons in public spaces seem, to me, to be acting as if outward appearances are paramount or crucial (despite the very unholy behavior of many of the politicians who scream the loudest for the public displays).  That seems quite Pharisaical to me. 

    Comment by David Giacalone — June 27, 2005 @ 7:43 pm

  6. Thanks for writing, BG.   In my understanding, the problem with the Pharisees is that (1) outward appearances were stressed so much, (2) they tried so hard to appear holy publically; and (3) strict application of rules (many of which on their face have nothing to do with living a good, moral life) seemed more important than the spirit that was at the heart of the religion.
    In the context of the Ten Commandments and other Religion Clause cases, the Justices are are not applying or making rules for the sake of rules; instead, they appear to be trying to meet the spirit of the Constitutional guarantees and of our national history and culture.   That cannot be done with simplistic rules, unless you have the one clear rule that the First Amendment seems to imply: nothing done by the Government should establish or favor religion.  Once you try to be neutral to both religion and non-religion freedoms, things have to get complicated.
    Those who insist on having the relgious icons in public spaces seem, to me, to be acting as if outward appearances are paramount or crucial (despite the very unholy behavior of many of the politicians who scream the loudest for the public displays).  That seems quite Pharisaical to me. 

    Comment by David Giacalone — June 27, 2005 @ 7:43 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress