10 PM bonus: from our Comment Section:
record heat
the ice cream man
adds a gallon to the radiator
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
“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)
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
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.”
characterize these ultra-fine [religion clause] distinctions as
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.
definition of Scholastic, which seems inapt to me when describing
today’s Court decisions:
“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
one bee and
a gardenful of roses —
on line at the ice cream truck
[June 27, 2005]
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.
Yu Chang – Upstate Dim Sum (2005/I)
potluck
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
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
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
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
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
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