Forums

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bitch, please. Read any of my nine GAZILLION posts on religion to figure out whether I think it's worth examining timeless standards, esp. to determine what they actually were to the people who wrote them down.*

Of course, as with religion, I, along with several past Supreme Courts, think it's insanely stupid to apply the strict language of a document even when it inflicts avoidable harm, net-net-net.** All but the most wingnutty religions find ways to avoid the incredibly sexist passages in Paul, for example. The wingnuts who don't are generally unwelcome in polite society. Yet strict constructionists still get invited to cocktail parties.

*Very often, upon examination, we find that the written word didn't mean to them what it means to us. What to do then? Strictly construe, or construe as would have been construed?

**Find a way to reconcile "Congress shall make no law" with the result in U.S. v. Schenk, for example.

As ususal, I can't make heads or tails out of this, other than you seem a bit excited.