Conciliating Hatred

First Things ^ | June/July 2004 | Steven D. Smith

[Huber]

Is this an apologetic for Sandra Day O'Connor or a searing indictment?

[Huber]

What say you? Must the center hold?

[Congressman Billybob]

This "Distinguished Professor of Law" is an example of cranio-rectal inversion. Under the American system of government, it is NOT THE JOB of Supreme Court Justices to act as pliosopher kings, as in Plato's Republic, setting aside all restraints to decide whenever five Justices can cobble together an agreement.

This is the exact opposite of a Court that sits under the authority of a written Constitution, and have taken an oath to support that Constitution until and unless the people use their sovereign right to amend it in accord with its terms. In short, such Justices are the enemies of such a Constitution, and so is this Professor of Law when he excuses such behavior.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Congressmen, Humorists, Burglars -- All of Us in the Trade."

[RobbyS]

An inditement of a well-meaning meddler.

[Congressman Billybob]

And BTW, the Professor's assertion that such Justices may have acted from "good intentions: is wrothless. Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the line written by Alexander Pope, 350 years ago. In case he reads this thread, here it is:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

John / Billybob

[evad]

Justice Antonin Scalia

Is this the same Scalia that JF'nKerry referred to as 'John' Scalia :)

[Ken H]

Their job is to decide whether or not a law violates the US Constitution.

The details can be found under Article III at this link--

Constitution for the United States of America

[Bonaparte]

I read Smith's entire article. After reading your post, I went back and reviewed it. He's clearly tearing O'Connor & Co. a new one, ie. he doesn't think the court has any business acting as "social issue" referees.

[Bonaparte]

Justice Scalia has two sons, Eugene and John, both of whom are lawyers.

[barkeep]

Have to agree with you. Much as I usually like the Congressman, I took the article as an indictment of judges who rule on extra-Constitutional grounds to right that which they perceive as a "wrong"

One part of his piece that struck a chord, abortion. I am now a pro-life Republican, but when Roe came out I was very much pro-choice. I remember scandalizing my friends with my view that the decision was legal nonsense, built atop the legal nonsense of Griswold. At 21, I may have been willing to support my wife's freedom, but I still loved the law. I carry a pocket Constitution, and still win a free drink from time to time tossing it to an irritating customer and daring them to find the right to privacy. May be, we ought to have one defined, but we damned sure don't. Find "auras and penumbras" in there, and you can drink free all night.

From a practical view, a Constitutional ruling,or should I say non-ruling, would likely have worked out for the better in the long run. At the time of Roe, I believe at least 11 states had modified their abortion laws to some extent. Had the question been properly left to the states, we would have had a spectrum of laws, but a spectrum subject to public persuasion, and I believe that persuasion would now be drifting pro-life.

What I took as the good Professor's main point, to wit, judges do us no favors by rushing to a Constitutionally unsupportable decision that may or may not turn out to be a publically acceptable consensus years later. If I read him right, that I agree with.

[Huber]

In short, such Justices are the enemies of such a Constitution, and so is this Professor of Law when he excuses such behavior.

I'm not convinced that he really is. The article seems to be more of a strawman, and its irony feels almost palpable.

[Huber]

Is this the same Scalia that JF'nKerry referred to as 'John' Scalia

Yes the good senator from HaMassachusetts apparantly voted to confirm "John" Scalia once, but he apparently regrets that vote now.

[Huber]

Their job is to decide whether or not a law violates the US Constitution.

Well...in theory.

However the Justices are so wise and omniscient that it would be unfortunate to limit their benefits in perfecting society to just interpreting the law. After all, the legislative branch is terribly inefficient. /bitingsarcasm

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Is this an apologetic for Sandra Day O'Connor or a searing indictment?

---

It's an indictment that gives the targets all possible benefit of doubt with regard to intentions, but concludes that they are bad actors in a tragedy of national proportions.

File under "Good intentions pave the road to hell".

[evad]

Yes the good senator from HaMassachusetts apparantly voted to confirm "John" Scalia once, but he apparently regrets that vote now.

Yes..that's the one.

Someone better check that. My guess is that he voted for 'John' before he decided to vote against 'John'.

[Tax-chick]

I think that he used a lot of big words and subtle locutions to say, in effect, "Sandra Day O'Connor is a flaming idiot with delusions of godhood, whose idea of 'law' comes out of the 'National Enquirer.' "

When I first highlighted this sentence: "So if the Justices are seeking to promote national conciliation, we may at least admire their motives. They mean well." I thought it was a straight proposition. It's not - it's straight-faced irony worthy of Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I think I'd like to take a class with this writer!

[TaxRelief]

Is that the same Scalia that Bush didn't know the first name of either?

Do you have a link for that accusation?

Welcome to Freerepublic, BTW.

Just a quick note: Posting etiquette requires URL links or verifiable references for all facts not mentioned in the article that begins each thread. For the purpose of reasonable discourse, we discourage "dump and run" hyperbole.

[TaxRelief]

Welcome to the Judicial Oligarchy of America!