Wednesday, July 20, 2005

An amusing semantic debunking of the supposed differences between five popular Supreme-Court-Nomination-Talking-Points words, as written by a former English professor (who also happens to be a current law professor):

Now that the speculation about who will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court is in full frenzy, we can look forward to debates in which words and phrases like 'originalist,' 'strict constructionist,' 'textualist,' 'judicial activist' and 'intentionalist' will figure prominently, because these labels are thought by many to stand for different styles of interpreting the Constitution. Those who think so are wrong.
Really, it's worth a look. It reads a bit like a calculus proof, but you'll be chuckling in spite of yourself by the end.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

So much for Garza.