5/7/2010

8 Responses to “Quick Chat on Intentionalism”

1. I tried joining — I’m a hack writer, etc., yes, I can see all that’s being said — but my comments didn’t take.

   Just so you know.

   Jeff G (929040) — 5/8/2010 @ 12:46 am

   
   

2. Jeff G,

   A moderator has to approve the first comment that any participant leaves on a Live Chat, and Patrick is the only moderator. He left to watch TV but hopefully he will come back.

   DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/8/2010 @ 1:22 am

   
   

3. As readers can see, I came back and approved Jeff G and dicentra and there was a long and lively discussion.

   Patterico (c218bd) — 5/8/2010 @ 3:29 am

   
   

4. Are you up early or up late?

   nk (db4a41) — 5/8/2010 @ 3:48 am

   
   

5. Up late, I see. Sorry I missed the chat.

   nk (db4a41) — 5/8/2010 @ 3:54 am

   
   

6. My parents spent a lot of time and money to teach me to like words but last night I liked meatloaf with mashed potatoes, wine and whiskey better. 😉

   nk (db4a41) — 5/8/2010 @ 3:57 am

   
   

7. When dicentra got the pepper she corrected herself and said I meant salt. She knew the convention and admitted to mis-using it.

   pk (4bf1aa) — 5/10/2010 @ 10:30 am

   
   

8. …and forget intentionalism. The law says what it says, Congress should vote on a revised law if the original law has mistakes or mis-prints or does not represent the intent of the author. Judges should not interpret the law based on the intent of the law writers. Damn the interpretation, why give the judiciary that responsibility? Why give any government agency that responsibility?

   pk (4bf1aa) — 5/11/2010 @ 8:13 pm