Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring):
Just what our
forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern
conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for
Pharaoh.
Id. at 634 (emphasis added).[1]
As usual, Justice Jackson’s writing is beautiful and engaging. But is his metaphor apt and sensible?
As usual, Justice Jackson’s writing is beautiful and engaging. But is his metaphor apt and sensible?
First,
Pharoah’s dreams were only enigmatic to Pharoah’s courtiers; Joseph—if we take
the text at face value—knew precisely what the dreams meant. Thus, the dreams
were not inherently “enigmatic”. Rather, they were only enigmatic to some
people. Second, whether Pharoah had dreams (to use the plural) was the core
issue being contested. Joseph’s position was that Pharoah only had a “single”
dream, not dreams. [Genesis 41:25.] In
both these ways, Jackson was wilfully rejecting the plain meaning of the text.
Furthermore,
Jackson’s point of view is odd. It was Joseph’s position which (at the time) was
adopted by Pharoah’s courtiers: his court. [Genesis
41:37.] In other words, not only is Jackson rejecting plain meaning, Jackson
is wilfully choosing to restate the story—not through Joseph’s eyes—but through
Pharoah’s courtier’s eyes prior to the
time they consented to adopt Joseph’s interpretation. Only in this limited way
can Jackson make his biblical metaphor work.
Welcome
to modernity.
To
put the issue in more modern terms ... Joseph tapped directly into original
intent. Perhaps, then, the lesson to be learned from this is that those who are
disconnected from tradition fall back onto functionalism, not because
functionalism is the superior methodology, but because the prior interpretive
tradition is one they can no longer readily comprehend. But those who still labour within
the tradition: they can quite happily push forward confidently understanding
prior art.
Seth
PS: My prior post is: Seth Barrett Tillman, What Law Could Learn From Popper’s Model of Science, The New Reform Club (Nov. 4, 2015, 12:30 PM), http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2015/11/what-law-could-learn-from-poppers-model.html
PS: My prior post is: Seth Barrett Tillman, What Law Could Learn From Popper’s Model of Science, The New Reform Club (Nov. 4, 2015, 12:30 PM), http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2015/11/what-law-could-learn-from-poppers-model.html
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/SethBTillman ( @SethBTillman
)
Seth Barrett Tillman, Justice Jackson’s Biblical Metaphor in Youngstown, New Reform Club (Nov. 5, 2015, 3:47 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2015/11/justice-jacksons-biblical-metaphor-in.html>;
[1] This
passage from Jackson’s concurrence has been cited in well over 100 legal opinions,
journal articles, and books.
Jackson almost certainly was playing to the crowd with this metaphor. Truman had seized the steel industry based on "war powers," despite the fact Congress conspicuously never declared war in Korea. The conflict was also at a stalemate with the NorKos and their Chinese reinforcements, having traded Seoul a few times already and languishing in stalled negotiations. So when deputy AG Baldridge told the district judge that it was "correct" that "the President can determine whether an emergency exists and that the courts cannot review it to see whether there is really an emergency,” and when the Post reported that under the headline "U.S. ARGUES PRESIDENT IS ABOVE COURTS," the government's case was licked in the court of public opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo Jackson and the other concurring opinions (the exigency of the matter left no time to consolidate the various rationales) knew of the great public interest in the story. But the sloppiness of the metaphor might be a sign that the "flies of summer" had already descended.
"U.S. ARGUES PRESIDENT IS ABOVE COURTS"
ReplyDeleteNo newspaper would print that today. At least not until after January 20, 2017.