At the New Reform Club, Seth Barrett Tillman: Justice Jackson’s Biblical Metaphor in Youngstown. It begins:
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).
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. …
Jackson, like Holmes, is evidence that great stylists are not to be trusted. Moreover, note that in Youngstown Jackson's unstated and undefended premise is that if judges can't figure out what the Constitution means, they can intervene anyway (recall that he voted to invalidate the President's action) rather than just leaving the matter to the political branches.
Posted at 1:50 PM