Occupational Blogging
In comments to a Mike Kozlowski post, Kate notes the blog of one of her former law professors, a man who actually sounds like a law professor:
David's argument rests on a confusion about my views and about the nature of the criticism I was making against Justice Scalia. I myself am not an originalist, nor do I regard original intention or original understanding as the touchstone to all legitimate constitutional interpretation. I think that there are many modalities of constitutional interpretation, of equal validity, including text, history, original understandings, original intentions, consequences, structure, and narrative ethos. Moreover, I am a constitutional historicist. My view is that what the Constitution means changes over time, in response to constitutional politics and social movement contestation. Thus, you can see my views are quite different from Justice Scalia's.
Um, yes. Quite.
It's very interesting, if somewhat arcane. I've been meaning to comemnt on it for quite some time, but have only gotten to it now because the alternative appears to be cleaning my office...
(If you're looking for more law-bloggers, of course, there's also the "The Law In Its Majesty" section of the Electrolite links bar, but none of them have quite the same "Paper Chase" sort of vibe...)
Posted at 11:57 AM | link | follow-ups |