Actions speak louder than words, Hunter, and Scalia has shown himself to be a rank hypocrite whenever he disagrees with the outcome of the law.
Aye, that's our real world, LA. We are all human, and thus vulnerable to rationalizations and therefore hypocrisy---although I personally think Scalia's batting average for fidelity to his judicial philosophy might make him the court's ranking non-hypocrite. To wit: Justice Ginsburg fully allows that Roe is bad law, but won't lift a finger to overturn it, or even tame it.
Do you favor turning your back on essential questions of right and wrong when the law dictates the contrary of your moral sense? I mean, surely a person of your obvious cosmic rectitude would have dissented in the Dred Scott decision.
Or as our current President Bush (two down, one to go) so eloquently put it:
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all—--you know, it doesn't say that..."
Precisely. Ah, the inarticulate speech of the heart: he is the master.
Trusty Slate lefty Tim Noah associates, and not unfairly, Roe with Scott, and why Bush says he wouldn't appoint someone so reasonable as to agree with the Constitution (at that time) on the latter.
I ask you this not to put you on the spot, LA, but to open the gates of heaven and hell to all on this Miers thing. I mean, it's far easier and quicker to learn someone else's mind than their heart, which is why I think Bush went this way. Peter Singer or FDR? Sensibility or sense? Nietzsche or Jesus? Justice or mercy? Winston Churchill or Viggo Mortensen?
---Viggo Mortensen, Artist, Actor, Activist
(Very interested as to what Brother Viggo has found in common with al-Qaeda and the janjaweed, and to hear his plan for Congo, but that should not diminish the universialityness of his sentiment. I'd think we could count him as firmly in Ms. Miers' court. What a nice man. If he had spent 10 years at Harriet Miers' side, spending time with her and giving her ideas a chance to be considered, I'm sure he would have nominated her himself.)
6 comments:
One thing of which I am certain is that self-government does not consist of having the ACLU present claims to the Supreme Court, which then wipes all the democratically enacted laws off the books in favor its policy preference.
There is a reason why we have legislatures and bother to hold elections. Does that system occasionally fail as regards what are clearly human rights? Yes, but quite often that same system will rectify itself via democratic means without leaving the same kind of gaping wounds as Roe. Witness the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example. Ends segregation. Sweeping effect. Done by vote of the people's duly elected reps.
The point is that even Brother Viggo could learn to love Miers before Peggy Noonan will. He's that kinda guy.
But the real and dangerous question is whether a judge should vote their conscience or vote the constitution.
This concept is apparently not operative for LA, although I admire her Burkean conservatism about the pace of proposed change. I myself am a fan of gridlock.
(I believe the world is mostly made of good people, but also mostly a Hobbesian hellhole. The problem of tyranny is one of concentrations of power, coupled with, as Burke notes, good men doing nothing. Pacifists, for instance, who although perhaps morally admirable, are parasites on the societies that spill their own blood to protect them.)
Connie, I'm essentially talking about Roe and its progeny, so you shouldn't have much complaint with me.
"Whether or not something is "good law" is a matter of opinion."
But is "whether or not something is`good law' is a matter of opinion" itself a matter of opinion? If so, then we can reject your opinion about opinions, since it is only an opinion. But if it is not merely an opinion, but a firm normative guideline about the nature of legal opinions, then why can't there be good law if there is good judgments about the nature of law?
Also, if there are no good or bad laws in any objective sense, then a state that promotes holocausts or hospitals are equally bad and good.
That is so counterintuitive that only a person protected by a regime governed by the rule of law can entertain such nonsense.
"But is "whether or not something is`good law' is a matter of opinion" itself a matter of opinion......"
"There have been lengthy and repeated explanations by Tlaloc, James, myself and others as to why this line of reasoning is faulty."
I would consider it a personal favor if you'd indulge me with a brief recap of the contrary argument, LA. I find Dr. Beckwith's case convincing.
I often similarly disconnect from discussions around here when I feel we're into pearls before swine time, but I promise you an unquestioning reciprocation at a time of your own choosing should you comply with my request.
Beckwith's argument is solely semantic. He brings credence to Wittgenstein and Derrida with every keystroke.
What would Gandhi or MLK Jr say about invading a country, provoked or no? Were they fringe lefties?
I believe the difficulty in this entire conversation is this: Who decides what the Constitution really means? Both sides have happily ignored additional writings of the Founding Fathers, such as the Federalist Papers, when they don't support their views. No one has the corner on an "originalist" doctrine because the Founders are all DEAD. We've already deviated from the original intent of the Constitution: The Constitution's authors neither wanted nor included political parties. As society has evolved and changed, issues have appeared that were beyond the ken of the Founders.
So, until so-called originalists can present us with a heretofore undiscovered trove of prophetic writings by Hamilton, or a magic crystal ball, or the preserved brain of Madison, we'll have to look askance on any one "definitive" doctrine.
Post a Comment