tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post112558343018845159..comments2023-10-18T03:53:59.377-04:00Comments on The Last Debate: Strict Constructionist?Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1125842748230479772005-09-04T10:05:00.000-04:002005-09-04T10:05:00.000-04:00Esther, thank you so much for dropping by and for ...Esther, thank you so much for dropping by and for your very well-written response. Dissent is always welcome here! And naturally I don't fancy myself a legal scholar, by any stretch of the imagination.<BR/><BR/>I think your explanation is probably how Scalia would choose to justify himself, but I suspect his real motivation for deferring these issues to Congress is that he knows a strict Constitutional reading prevents him from taking one segment of the population, defined by arbitrary qualities such as sexual orientation, and ruling that they are entitled to a different set of rights than the rest of the population. Clearly he doesn't want gay marriage, and for him it would be more expedient to have the Republican-controlled Congress kill it for him.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1125784815861238202005-09-03T18:00:00.000-04:002005-09-03T18:00:00.000-04:00Not to be mildly controversial or anything, but I ...Not to be mildly controversial or anything, but I believe Scalia is addressing what the Supreme Court terms a "political question?" A political question is something that the court chooses not to decide, rather it leaves it to Congress or the people or the states. It had a grand tradition of use at one time. Basically, a political question is one which ought to be decided by a more representative body than the Supreme Court.<BR/><BR/>Scalia is not saying that there is a problem with unelected judges. His argument is that unelected judges should decide cases of law and equity, not political questions. <BR/><BR/>(Aside: Law is obvious. Equity deals with problems of fairness that the law cannot answer.) <BR/><BR/>For example, Scalia sees abortion rights as a political question because it is such a controversial matter. It should not be decided by unelected powers. It is too mixed in the politics of the day and according to this theory should be dealt with by authorities that are closer to the people and can appropriately resolve the tension that exists. He is not suggesting that justices should be elected, he is not questioning the Framers, he is merely applying a different idea.<BR/><BR/>More to the heart of the matter. I am not going to change your mind, so why bother writing this? I am mostly surprised that no one else disagrees. I hope to write a thoughtful, but provocative response to your post. I appreciate it that you think about these matters and that you use evidence in your thoughts. I simply disagree with your conclusions.<BR/><BR/>Yes, there is a difference between morality and legality. Since you think the Supreme Court's more pioneering decisions are okay, what do you think of the Dredd Scott decision?<BR/>http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/dredsupp.html It follows the tradition of the court choosing to act on a political question. In this decision the Court decided that Dredd Scott was neither a citizen, nor a person and he would not be in any state. The Court would never admit it, but many of the decisions made today are based on the same sort of reasoning that went into Dredd Scott. So, if the Court infringed on your view of morality in its recent bent of opinions, would you say it's okay? If another case similar to Dredd Scott came down, would that be all right?Estherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04892778181543416624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1125752052324798692005-09-03T08:54:00.000-04:002005-09-03T08:54:00.000-04:00God you're so brilliant. I just love your blog. ...God you're so brilliant. I just love your blog. Fucking delicious.Aethloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10943629916231138113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1125609568624773382005-09-01T17:19:00.000-04:002005-09-01T17:19:00.000-04:00Clearly the Onion reads your blog as well ;)Genie ...Clearly the Onion reads your blog as well ;)<BR/><BR/>Genie Grants Scalia Strict Constructionist Interpretation Of Wish<BR/><BR/>August 31, 2005 | Issue 41•35<BR/><BR/>WASHINGTON, DC—A genie freed from a battered oil lamp by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted the conservative jurist a strict constructionist interpretation of his wish for "a hundred billion bucks" Monday. "Sim sim salabim! Your wish is my command!" the genie proclaimed amid flashes of light and purple smoke, immediately filling the Supreme Court building with a massive herd of wild male antelopes. When Justice Scalia complained that the "bucks" had razed the U.S. Supreme Court building, trampling and killing several of his clerks and bringing traffic in the nation's capital to a standstill for hours, the genie said, "Your honor, your wish is a sacred and unalterable document whose interpretation is not subject to the whims of society and changing social context."N. Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11526973107011812386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1125601323626371502005-09-01T15:02:00.000-04:002005-09-01T15:02:00.000-04:00Excellent post.Just. Excellent.Excellent post.<BR/><BR/>Just. Excellent.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02956524909645097069noreply@blogger.com