Cedric Bond’s Post

View profile for Cedric Bond, graphic

AUSA | opinions are my own

“If you’re trying to understand the past, the present often gets in the way and the past often gets rewritten to make itself useful to the present.” This quote from Professor Seth Tillman got me thinking. I came across it in a biographical essay on Tillman in Tablet Magazine. You can read the essay here: https://lnkd.in/gKGHehhB. Despite its title, the article has little to do with politics. Instead, it is a portrait of an independent thinker and legal scholar who dispassionately approaches his work without fear of parting from prevailing views. (For a TL;DR summary, see Josh Blackman’s Volokh Conspiracy post about the “thinker whose mind hasn’t been corrupted by politics”: https://lnkd.in/gCXzNi3Q.) There is much to admire in the man. From Tillman’s careful approach to scholarship to his personal piety, he is someone worth learning about. It was this quote, though, that jumped out at me. It reminded me of the excerpts my undergraduate history professor Dr. James Buss had me read in David Lowenthal’s book The Past is a Foreign Country. It is so easy to see whatever we want in the past. But this confirmation bias is but a symptom of a deeper problem. We take this cheap, flea-market approach to history because truly studying the past is hard. Just think of the swirling milieu of influences at work on us now. Internal, external, local, regional, national, international forces all impact our daily lives. And yet we barely know half of them. To study the past, then, requires us to detatch ourselves from these forces and inquire into the forces and actions at play at a different time and place. No wonder the past is more foreign than we realize. The lesson Dr. Buss was teaching (as I recall a decade removed) was the need for humility and detachment when studying the past. The same holds true for lawyers. Most of what we do as lawyers, and especially as litigators, involves competing views of the past. As we gather facts it takes conscious detachment to evaluate them. As we build our cases, it takes cold analysis to scrutinize the evidence and law. And as we uncover more evidence, it takes humility to recognize that our initial impressions could be wrong. It’s not easy. But humble detachment is as necessary for lawyers as it is for any other student of the past. It’s just part of the job. #LawyersofLinkedIn #History

The Outsider Legal Genius Who May Rescue Trump

The Outsider Legal Genius Who May Rescue Trump

tabletmag.com

Chelsea Kabakaba

Assistant District Attorney Onslow County, North Carolina

10mo

What I wouldn’t give for that pdf packet…anyone know where to find those articles?

Stephen D.

PM/CM Executive (Emeritus)

10mo

"Tillman’s various projects often probed different versions of a unifying thematic question: 'What if there’s something we forgot in part because no one ever thought they had to write it down?'” This question is often in my mind in biblical exegesis.

Ben Shaw, PhD

President @ CORE | Speaker | Author | Jiu Jitsu Black Belt

10mo

Lots of food for thought in here.

Louis Colombo, CFP®

Financial Advisor at Edward Jones • I work with clients to align their investment strategies with their values.

10mo

Humility is an important trait when approaching any field of study / activity. And let’s not confuse humility with lack of confidence. One can be quite confident in their skills, ability, knowledge, etc, while still recognizing that there is always more beyond that. 🙏

Tony Gil

Mestrando em Direito | Master's candidate in Business Law

10mo

LET'S JUST ADMIT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND GET IT OVER WITH The problem with applying the historical approach to contemporary constitutional interpretation of obscurities deriving from the faulty redaction of a very old (senile, maybe?) constitution, is that one is looking for guidance from 18th century slave owners, who weren't even sure whether or not they wanted to be ruled by a king. Wouldn't it be best to simply admit that one actually applies the teleological approach of the moment, cloaked in exegesis and Savigny (aka the Scalia Method)? Who are we trying to fool by denying the prevalence of judicial activism in most constitutional courts' decisions (SCOTUS's included) the world over?

Donald Patrick Eckler

Partner at Freeman, Mathis, & Gary, LLP, Second Vice President of Illinois Defense Counsel, Member of DRI Taskforce on TPLF, and Co-host of Podium and Panel Podcast

10mo

Essentially quoting Orwell: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

Douglas Bond

Author, historical tour leader, conference speaker at Scriptorium Press

10mo

And when we get history wrong, we confine ourselves to making the same ruinous mistakes all over again.

Shannon Farazi

Law | SDE | Healthcare | In memory of Honorable Mr. Bob Miner 💚🤍❤️| Personal Account | My opinions are mine and mine only | Human Rights | ©️S.F.🇺🇸⚖️

10mo

🚨What nonsense is past, now, future, etc, and etc: “Rescue Trump”? 🎟️Dear Author and others, ⚠️The Supreme Court incident had happened before and the outcome was known whether Trump or not. Thereby, The intent? Proof for credibility Test for both sides.📍🇺🇸🇺🇳

Randall Tallent

Service-oriented J.D. Candidate, Law Aide, Research Assistant, and Fellow at ASU

10mo

Really interesting article about what sounds like a very interesting man full of thought and curiosity.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics