Jaffa and others at the Claremont Group (which includes Claremont McKenna College, Pomona College, Claremont Graduate University, Scripps College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, and the Keck Graduate Institute) are firm believers, like Lincoln, in the "founding principles" of the nation, some of which are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence (i.e "all men are created equal," all are entitled by their humanity to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," etc). The Cabal doesn't like the concept.
Exactly where did that happen? I followed the debate after DiLorenzo's book came out very thoroughly and saw precious little substance from the Claremont side of things. Jaffa debated DiLorenzo at a forum once, and though they were both cordial, it was clear that DiLorenzo argued on specific facts while Harry, as is usual, based his case on an approach consisting of little more than "Look at me! I'm Harry Jaffa and I say so!"
Beyond that we were treated to a string of editorial attacks by Jaffa's minions. Most notable among them was Thomas Krannawitter, whose response to the book was a downright vitriolic ad hominem rant in which he did little more than throw names and insults at DiLorenzo while professing himself to be a better credentialed "scholar" (bear in mind that DiLorenzo has a PhD and Krannawitter a Master's). Ken Masugi gave more of the same in National Review - an article that was intellectually weak even by Claremont's standards. I dismantled it piece by piece at the time here: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/765661/posts
"The Cabal" prefers that legal decisions be based on law.
El Capitan thinks that court rulings should be based on feel-good channelling of Ms Cleo. They rely on things like "founding principles" which are nowhere codified in any legally binding compact, treaty, or law; they claim that these uncodified "principles" carry the weight of law because of some arbitrarily created and tangential relationship to something that is legally binding. From there, we have the notion that a court can rely on something such as the DoI, or the defunct AofC.
The argument carries only the weight of the bayonet used to enforce it. Legally and logically it fails in every respect.
Tell us, Oh Capitan my Capitan, what should the ruling have been in Scott?