Bob Wenz has an intriguing take on two seemingly unrelated events that occurred last fall: the emergence of a de facto supermajority requirement for presidential nominations to the federal court bench, and the decision by the Episcopal Church to elevate a practicing homosexual to the office of bishop.
In the first case, Senate Democrats, knowing that they couldn't stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees by way of a simple majority vote, took the unprecedented step of filibustering the nominations. Breaking a filibuster requires a supermajority of 60 votes, a tally the Republicans has no hope of achieving on issues the Democrats unite in opposing. In the second case, the Episcopal Church promoted Gene Robinson despite the clear teachings of Scripture against homosexual conduct and against the promotion of the unrepentant to positions of leadership in the church.
While the filibuster strategy was problematic in itself, the Democrats' reason for resorting to this strategy was even more so: they insisted that the nominees (otherwise considered highly qualified) were "out of the judicial mainstream" because their judicial philosophy strays dangerously in the direction of strict constructionism and original intent -- philosophies that the Democrats view as extremist.
At their foundation these events do in fact share something in common -- the notion that an author's intent does not necessarily have relevance to the way a reader should interpret what he is reading. Consistently applied, this notion (called the "Intentional Fallacy") allows documents like the Constitution and the Bible to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean -- and often leads to doctrines and principles that are in complete opposition to the plain meaning of the words.
Most certainly, the logical end of this philosophy vis-à-vis the Bible and the Constitution is that no meaningful constraint may be placed on any conduct in which one (as an individual or as a government) wishes to engage. After all, who's to say that your interpretation is superior to mine?
Come to think of it, this may have been the original intent of those who cling to this philosophy.
In the first case, Senate Democrats, knowing that they couldn't stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees by way of a simple majority vote, took the unprecedented step of filibustering the nominations. Breaking a filibuster requires a supermajority of 60 votes, a tally the Republicans has no hope of achieving on issues the Democrats unite in opposing. In the second case, the Episcopal Church promoted Gene Robinson despite the clear teachings of Scripture against homosexual conduct and against the promotion of the unrepentant to positions of leadership in the church.
While the filibuster strategy was problematic in itself, the Democrats' reason for resorting to this strategy was even more so: they insisted that the nominees (otherwise considered highly qualified) were "out of the judicial mainstream" because their judicial philosophy strays dangerously in the direction of strict constructionism and original intent -- philosophies that the Democrats view as extremist.
At their foundation these events do in fact share something in common -- the notion that an author's intent does not necessarily have relevance to the way a reader should interpret what he is reading. Consistently applied, this notion (called the "Intentional Fallacy") allows documents like the Constitution and the Bible to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean -- and often leads to doctrines and principles that are in complete opposition to the plain meaning of the words.
Most certainly, the logical end of this philosophy vis-à-vis the Bible and the Constitution is that no meaningful constraint may be placed on any conduct in which one (as an individual or as a government) wishes to engage. After all, who's to say that your interpretation is superior to mine?
Come to think of it, this may have been the original intent of those who cling to this philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment