Legalities

This is a different Joe from immediately above.

I checked out the blog this afternoon and was wondering where all these comments were coming from, and then I clicked over and checked out Drudge and saw the blog is linked over there today. Now I get it.

On the whole "Beg the question" issue . . . some dictionaries now list the "raise the question" meaning as one of the definitions, because it's so often used that way in normal conversation, even though the original meaning is totally different.

As I remember from some time ago, the odd wording of the expression comes from the reinassance when all of those old Greek documents were found and translated. Originally, what it referred to was one of the ten basic fallacies in logic that Aristotle listed. Off hand, I remember it as meaning the error of assuming the end into the means in an argument. (For example the error of assuming the end that Iraqi's would all greet the US troops as liberators and would all then live happily ever after as a reason for argung that it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Obviously Aristotle knew what he was talking about by pointing this out as a major fallacy in logic).

But the original reinassance translator of the Greek came up with this "begs the question term" and then over the years that got mixed up in people's minds with phrases like "beg to differ" and "raises the question", and then now most people who hear it think it means raises the question. Oh, well, majority rules sometimes, maybe this time. But, personally, I think the original meaning is very interesting and shouldn't be lost.

I also think the blog is very interesting -- the comments too.

To Toddler: HUH? Look I'm not an English major and I don't understand the whole logic argument about "begs the question" and frankly I don't care. I DO care that a card carrying, former legal counsel for the GOD-$%^& ACLU sits on the SCOTUS. That just galls me. Had Mr. Bush appointed a member and former legal counsel from say The Federalist Society, the braying from the donks would be ear piercing. I would never teach my child to hate, but if I did, liberals and LA Dodgers are where I'd start.

What is it with people lately?

If it's not people lamenting that the suicide bomber in Afghanistan wasn't successful in killing Dick Cheney, it's people hoping that Justice Ginsburg will get ill and die before George W. Bush leaves office.

I'm no particular fan of Justice Ginsburg's philosophies or jurisprudence either. But I can't imagine welcoming her death or illness. That's just plainly sick.

can't wait til that old ACLU POS croaks.

Top possible replacements:

Karl Rove
Newt Gingrich
Ken Starr
Ann Coulter

"Had Mr. Bush appointed a member and former legal counsel from say The Federalist Society, the braying from the donks would be ear piercing."

Ha ha. Moron. Ever heard of Alito and Roberts? Both members. Also affiliated: Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, who screens his Judicial Clerks based on recommendations from the Federalist Society.

Unlike the Federalist Society, the ACLU is a non-partisan organization dedicated solely to the protection of civil liberties, the same freedoms that Bush, et al. squawk about daily. Why do you hate America?

These comments are unbelievable in their tone and their completely unfounded nature. Honestly, who wishes for a person to die because they disagree with her beliefs -- which are certainly held by a substantial number of other people?

Additionally, anyone who knows anything about the Supreme Court and its news coverage knows that Ms. Greenburg is BY FAR the most evenhanded Court commentator -- indeed, even tilting conservative. The idea that she has a liberal bias is downright laughable.

Oh, and this is a conservative writing this comment. An informed conservative.

Producer Howard Rosenberg butting in here on Jan's blog because I can't resist. As a onetime English major myself, it's endlessly amusing to read that such a commonly used phrase as “begs the question” could elicit such a heated discussion about its proper usage. As a lawyer--which I'm not--might say, just "to perfect the record,” let me refer everyone to the most authoritative text on this issue--the Oxford University Press Revised Third Edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage. The entry quoted below seems to indicate most of the comments on Jan's entry are, to quote the Bard, “much ado about nothing.” (The "Bard," by the way, refers to Shakespeare, for non-English majors.)

"beg the question. 1 In strict use, the English equivalent of Latin petito principii, used in logic to mean the ‘fallacy founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. 2 In general use, the meaning is much more likely to be ‘to evade a difficulty’ or‘to refrain from giving a straightforward answer’. Examples: Let’s…beg the question of just who was in love with whom—H. Jacobson 1986; He simply begged the question by saying that the decisions he disapproved invented new rights—NY Rev. Bks. 1987; John Major’s vision of Europe seems to me entirely correct. But it begs the question: why did the Prime Minister all but sacrifice his office ratifying The Maastricht treaty when [etc.].—Economist,1993."

It seems to beg the question as to which is proper, since each variation seems to get some usage, either strictly or generally. That is, according to those English sticklers at Oxford. And who am I to argue with them?

I also think it's irresponsible for a professional journalist to raise such serious questions over a 30-second departure delay. (And I hate to be so blunt, but your characterization of Souter's concern is ridiculous: "almost as if he wanted to see if she needed assistance." Almost? As if? He wanted to see? IF she needed?...)

I am sorry, though, that so many of these comments are so weird. Wishing death, hating women... get a life, Drudge readers.

All of these conservatives are whining about the liberal bias of Greenburg. They say she doesn't respect the POTUS becasue she calls him George W. Bush. I guess they conveniently ignor her refer to "President Bush" in the first sentence of the story. They also conveniently ignor how she gushed how Chief Justice Roberts "completely ran the show" and how much "fun" it was seeing him in action. She perpetuates a conservative fantasy by suggesting Ginsburg could be dead soon. That really sounds like liberal bias doesn't it? Hello Right Wingers, Limbaugh et al. are infinity times more partisan than any run of the mill main stream journalist. They at least attempt to be objective, when can tht be said of the right wing media? Don't those boys have some politicians' water to start carrying? Oh yeah, Rush says he won't do that anymore. One more tip, never believe Rush, especially if you ever marry him.

Kevin, nice try, but, Rush is not a journalist, is he? Nor is Hannity, or O'reily, or Beck. Funny thing. Conservitives only get on the air as commentators. Liberals have and continue to dominate the "unbiased" position of reporters and anchors.

Thank you to whomever posted the entry on question begging from Fowler's. Ms. Crawford Greenburg failed to use the phrase in a way that fits either of those usages. But what she lacks in knowledge she makes up for in good looks. I say, let the info-babe keep her job. We'll never have good journalists at ABC. We might as well have attractive ones.

Ouch. I feel I need to come to Ms. Greenburg's defense. I'm educated, maybe more educated than most of the self appointed language police here; 2xB.S. and a recent Ph.D., thank you. The whole "beg the question" business is very new to me. Thankfully, it was trivial to discern Mr. Greenburg's meaning from the context. Nice how that works. Convenient too, given the transient nature of common parlance. I've enjoyed Ms. Greenburg's thoughtful analysis on the News Hour over many nights. And I enjoy it here, despite the gathering of self important asses.

Thanks for the perspective pigwiggle. From what website is your PhD?

One can but hope that Ginsburg's foul, seditious stench (typical of liberals in general) will shortly be filled by another originalist like Justice Thomas...

Thanks for the perspective pigwiggle. From what website is your PhD?

Jeeze, really weak burn Eric. Embarrassing. Yeah, really, uh .... awkward and embarrassing. Too bad there isn't an edit function, I mean ... wow. Really, very weak.

"The real drama of the day occurred at the end of the argument", according to Ms. Greenburg, when Justice Ginsburg doesn't immediately get out of her chair. The "real drama" in a day of especially enlivening argument has to do with what possibility?

Chief Justice Roberts "really ran the show" and in the end it was clear the "atheists" would be on the "losing side". Never mind exactly what points he was trying to make or the technicalities involved, the important thing is that he was scoring points - for the believers against the atheists?

This is like throwing red meat to carnivores, although some appear to be intent on biting the hand that feeds them.

"Never mind exactly what points he was trying to make or the technicalities involved, the important thing is that he was scoring points - for the believers against the atheists?"

Hmmm, you expected "FACTUAL" news from ABC?!?!

I wish Justice Ginsburg health and happiness in the remaining years of her life. I would prefer that she start enjoying it in Miami Beach as soon as possible. She isn't a judge, she's an unaccountable legislator. Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas make her look like a rank amateur as a judge, which compared to them, she is.

I suppose a Supreme Court Justice slumbering during arguments is not an issue as long as that judge supports your ideaology. It's remarkable how she was even appointed, considering her affiliation with the ACLU and her unwillingness to answer questions during her nomination hearings. If your effectiveness is so dimished where you cannot remain conscious during your job, then perhaps it is time to retire with dignity.

Ginsburg owes America the decency to step down if she can't or won't stay awake during proceedings. The last thing we need is another liberal cadaver occupying a justice's chair.