I paid little attention to Clarence Thomas’ appointment in 1991 other than to recognize, given my background in nonverbal communication, that he was probably lying about harassment. The research reveals that telling whether a person is lying is not nearly as easy as some would like you to believe. So, my conclusion was “probable.” But in watching Anita Hill all the nonverbals indicated a high probability she was telling the truth. That was all very frustrating. My focus was completely upon the harassment issues and what that meant for the future of the court. But what I ignored at the time was Thomas’ hermeneutic (interpretive) approach of Originalism to his interpretation of the Constitution. A serious mistake on my part.
In contrast, I paid a lot of attention to Scalia’s appointment and his hermeneutic. I was especially perturbed and rejecting of his later interpretation of the Second Amendment. My response was “Oh god, no. I’ve been here before. This is just crazy.” And then there is his protégé, Amy Coney Barrett.
I have yet to find a legal writer who understands—or cares--that we’ve been dealing with Biblical parallels to Originalism that date back to the 1920s and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. Thomas, Scalia and Barrett would be considered “Fundamentalists.” Legal Fundamentalists. The comparison has been enlightening. What drives my interest in both the Controversy and the Scalia-Barrett commitments are my seminary education in systematic theology and my graduate studies in modern rhetoric and intellectual American history--and the legalized mass murder made possible by Scalia’s Originalist (mis)interpretation of the Second Amendment (D.C. vs. Heller) and the NRA.
Continue reading "Barrett, Scalia and the Tone Deafness of Legal and Biblical Originalism" »