|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
The Supreme Court has handed down a very interesting ruling in Roper v. Simmons - http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/03-633p.zo.pdf- which has drawn an almost apoplectic dissenting opinion from Scalia: http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/03-633p.zd1.pdfI would certainly take issue with his maths, since he does not seem (in his discussion of Amish views of motor cars) to have the faintest understanding of the principles of sets and Venn drivers! I would also take exception to the thinly-veiled xenophobia evident in his distaste for the views held by the international family of which America is a member. However, the central question he raises is one that might interest this language board: to what extent does our use of language have a fixed and certain meaning? “The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, like other expansive language in the Constitution, must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual.” (Kennedy plurality) “the concept of law ordinarily signifies that particular words have a fixed meaning. Such law does not change…” (Scalia’s dissent)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
The question posed by Maverick...
"...to what extent does our use of language have a fixed and certain meaning?"
...is the most important question of out time.
And I think that our very survival as a vibrant evolutionary force depends on our ability to resolve a functional answer.
The short answer is "NO!" .
But, of course, some meanings can be better "fixed" in meaning than others.
But no meaning of any word, or of any groups of words can have a meaning that is absolute.
Such is the nature of words.
Anyone here who thinks otherwise should turn in their
Tom Corbett Space Cadet Language Decoder Ring and slink off in shame because they know not well of what that they think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
The fixed meaning of language is the product of desired outcome. [/scalia subtext]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Scalia has ambitions - he sees himself as chief candidate to replace Rhenquist when that worthy pops his clogs, which is likely to be sooner rather than later. But Scalia has a number of views which, while they may strike a chord with the current Administration, will be seen as anathema to many Americans, I am sure: http://www.vermontguardian.com/national/0904/1203national-roun.shtmlSo the words he discusses will certainly be seen to him as meaning precisely what he wants them to mean. Neither more nor less, as someone once said ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Every Supreme Court session opens with the cry, “God save the United States!” yeah, with Scalia at work...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
...You boys don't want to talk "words" do you, you boys want to talk US partisan politics and bash Scalia. Sounds like fun, but people here get mad if I talk politics here so please excuse me if I sit this bashing out. Shoot! I miss all the fun. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
...You boys don't want to talk "words" do you, you boys want to talk US partisan politics and bash Scalia.
Sounds like fun, but people here get mad if I talk politics here so please excuse me if I sit this bashing out.
Shoot! I miss all the fun.
I have to say, Milo, that on one level you do have a point [shaking forefinger at the offenders e]; however, upon thinking a little deeper I must also say that there is a big difference between stating honest opinion and deliberately trying to incite.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 389
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 389 |
Do you think we should be using orange font so close to St. Pat's Day?
Beidh an t-ath ort! (may luck be with you)
O'bow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Well then, Jackie, perhaps you will suggest a way that I could have otherwise opined my point without enlisting these grown men to incite.
Men, I think, thank God, are made of sterner stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
> bash Scalia
Actually I don't Milo. Although I may have, heh, reservations about the man and his politics, of course being a perfick gennulman I would have to refrain from casting any aspersions in these hallowed grounds ;)
No, my question was cast quite carefully because although I personally would reject his almost fundamentalist assertion that language must be fixed and unchanging, it seemed to me that he does raise a point of some interest: how long is to have elapsed before it is reasonable or necessary to review meanings of important texts in the light of current connotative understandings?
This has a much wider application than mere politics (he said, carefully avoiding mention of the bible) <<EG>>
But seriously, I meant the question in good faith as a debating point about how we use language over time.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
854
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
