Debate Closes Doors, Inquiry Opens Them

In reading an account of a recent Supreme Court argument, one of the Justices "peppered the lawyer with questions" about his argument and then admonished him to argue the case before them and not try to overhaul Constitutional Law in general. In an analysis commentary after the close of the day's arguments, it was stated by one critic that had the justice in question heard the attorney's recent talks at a Federal Bar Association enclave, the Justice "would better understand where [that attorney was] coming from."

This strikes me as a non-literary instance of a situation where New Criticism trumps all other forms of analysis. As an attorney arguing a case before the Supreme Court, needs must have it that you do not stray from the text (of the case for which you are present), as all outside references to other matters (unless they involve a previous Supreme Court case on the same subject, in which case those cases are part of the "text" over which you are arguing) are irrelevant and, lacking a more comprehensive and particular legal term, verboten. A Justice should not have to attend an attorney's speech outside of the court room to understand the point of their argument inside the court. That's a logical fallacy in terms of a debate.

So where does meaning come from then in this instance?

The meaning comes from—and is rigidly circumscribed to—the text of the case and from the text of the Constitution (as applicable to the case at hand).

Sometimes there are texts for which there is not an allowance for the "reader" to stray from the page.


(March 2, 2010)


· • ·