Tuesday, July 19, 2005
(1:32 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Stanley Fish to be named to Supreme Court
Actually, Stanley Fish is not a judge or even a lawyer, so he would be a longshot at best. However, his op-ed in today's New York Times is interesting, as is Jim Lindgren's response at the Volokh Conspiracy. Fish argues that authorial intention is the only possible object of rational interpretation; Lindgren argues that Fish is being too literary and in the case of law, it is the meaning intended by those who ratify the law that is important, since their ratification is what makes the law law. One wishes that Derrida were still alive and writing a blog, because I'm sure he would have an interesting response to both.(You can basically just read the Lindgren piece if you're pressed for time -- he seems to be confused about the Times's registration policies and has copied the bulk of Fish's column into his own post.)
An early confession: everything I know about legal theory (not much), I learned from Stanley Fish, Jacques Derrida, and Giorgio Agamben.
