Thursday, March 22, 2012

How Not to Criticize Originalism

Saul Cornell's posts on Originalism during his guest stint at Faculty Lounge are so over the top that perhaps they make this point on their own.  But in case it needs to be said:  it's not effective to paint other scholars as cartoonish with posts that are themselves cartoonish.  Cornell has made important scholarly contributions in the past.  He threatens his own future readership with blogging that brings more heat than light to the question of the role of history in constitutional interpretation.  We don't like it when conservatives mischaracterize scholarship for the purpose of constructing an argument.  And we don't like it when liberals do that, too.

1 comment:

Shag from Brookline said...

Assuming Saul Cornell was over the top, consider Jack Balkin's critique of McGinnis and Rappaport's critique of his new book "Living Originalism" in Jack's "Nine Perspectives on Living Origiinalism" available at SSRN:

Jack's paper responding to critiques of his new book devotes in Section II. 18 pages (out of 59 total pages) to McGinnis and Rappaport's critique. Blogging does have its limitations, not only for Saul Cornell as a guest blogger at the Faculty Lounge (which allows comments) but also for Michael Rappaport at The Originalism Blog (which generally does not allow comments), in going over the top.