Angry Staff Officer: This all becomes very evident when you read a paper by a lawyer on a historical topic. Context be damned, they go for accumulating a pile of quotes that support their argument, regardless if the people they're quoting violently disagreed with them Let's get some historians on SCOTUS

This all becomes very evident when you read a paper by a lawyer on a historical topic. Context be damned, they go for accumulating a pile of quotes that support their argument, regardless if the people they're quoting violently disagreed with them Let's get some historians on SCOTUS

These mistakes originalist justices are making aren’t about disputed interpretations of history, with evidence on both sides. They’re pulling quotes out of context to attribute ideas to founding figures that those figures adamantly opposed. (via @andycraig.bsky.social) reason.com/volokh/2024/...

The Supreme Court's Dubious Use of History in Department of State v. Munozreason.com Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.

This reminds me of an interaction with a lawyer on Twitter. He told me calling history complex was how people dodged taking a side. He had no idea how the study of history worked—everything had to be black or white, context be damned.

Better yet, let's get people who consider modern life and conditions instead of making decisions based on what some fucking witch-burner in the 1600s thought about something.

I mean, sure, but also 1775 is a bit different than 1675. The enlightenment helped

And 1975 differed from 1775. We don't need historians on the court, we need intellectually honest people on the court.

They are result-oriented so will distort history to get to the desired result. 😡

Post