Skip to comments.
Law and Language (Scalia on the nature of law, great read)
First Things ^
| November 2005
| Antonin Scalia
Posted on 12/06/2005 11:45:26 AM PST by Cicero
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Although this is a book review, it is also a splendid essay on the state of law in America, where it came from, where it is going, and particularly the problems that confront us in a world without values, controlled by liberal judges and postmodernist law professors.
1
posted on
12/06/2005 11:45:28 AM PST
by
Cicero
To: Cicero
2
posted on
12/06/2005 11:51:51 AM PST
by
bubman
To: bubman
As one reaches the end of the book, after reading Vinings just-short-of-theological imaginings followed by Smiths acknowledgment of richer realities and greater powers in the universe, he (she?) is sorely tempted to leap up and cry out, Say it, man! Say it! Say the G-word! G-G-G-G-
3
posted on
12/06/2005 12:17:53 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Cicero; Northern Yankee; The Raven; Bitwhacker; Miss Marple
Cool! Thanks for the post.
4
posted on
12/06/2005 12:20:52 PM PST
by
Molly Pitcher
(We are Americans...the sons and daughters of liberty...*.from FReeper the Real fifi*))
To: Cicero
This made me laugh out loud:
The problem is not simply, as Smith thinks, that we cannot posit an adequate hypothetical author. It is that, even if we could, the law that would result would be a hypothetical law (whose violation would presumably be punishable by hypothetical incarceration).
5
posted on
12/06/2005 1:12:58 PM PST
by
Califelephant
(Liberals: "We've always been soft on criminals, but now we're soft on terrorists too.")
To: Cicero
Similarly, we have a practice of relying upon judicial precedent (so-called stare decisis
), which is no less extensive post-Holmes than pre-Holmes. That made sense in a legal system that regarded judicial opinions as evidence of what the law is. It makes no sense in a legal system that regards the judicial opinion itself
as the law, any more than it would make sense to bind todays legislature to the laws adopted in the past.Nails it there. There's a lot of confusion among even legal commentators about what judicial decisions are and are not. They keep referring to "the state of the law" when what they're really talking about is the state of judicial opinion. They're not the same.
6
posted on
12/06/2005 1:34:51 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
In the old days of Common Law, stare decisis really meant something. It was the law as it had been interpreted by numerous judges over hundreds of years. And that law, in turn, was based on divine law and common law.
Now, as you say, it means nothing but the latest judge's latest opinion. It's noticeable that liberals always plead stare decisis when it comes to their precious decisions like Roe v. Wade, but they ignore it when it comes to overturning hundreds of years of precedents in order to get with the program.
That's Scalia's point. In an age of arbitrary opinions, it means nothing any more.
7
posted on
12/06/2005 2:18:00 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Molly Pitcher
Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately I have no ping lists.
8
posted on
12/06/2005 2:18:53 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Califelephant
Yes, indeed. I also liked this counter-example:
Try this hypothetical instead: Two persons who speak only English see sculpted in the desert sand the words LEAVE HERE OR DIE.
I suspect that the desert he is talking about although he pretends only to be proposing a "hypothetical," is an allegory for the present state of our legal culture, which is what T. S. Eliot would have called a Waste Land.
9
posted on
12/06/2005 2:25:05 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Cicero
In the old days of Common Law, stare decisis really meant something. It was the law as it had been interpreted by numerous judges over hundreds of years. And that law, in turn, was based on divine law and common law.And the need for it (at least on consitutional matters) has been largely obviated by the fact that we have a concise written Constitution, which anybody can refer to. Since past judicial decisions are, as Scalia says, evidence of the law, and are not the actual law itself, they're useful in determining unwritten common law. But they're not needed in determining the written Constitution that's sitting right in front of us, and was designed for the people to be able to understand.
10
posted on
12/06/2005 2:48:36 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
Exactly. As he points out, you don't need to know what the individual founders MEANT by the words of the Constitution, either, which is how "wall of separation" got dragged into the discussion. You only need to know what the words, phrases, and general ideas meant to an ordinary, educated person at that time.
So it does help to have some acquaintance with Common Law, Natural Law theory, John Locke, the Bible and the Ten Commandments, and a few other background matters that the Founders drew on and took for granted as part of their mental equipment. But you still go primarily by the words themselves.
11
posted on
12/06/2005 2:56:14 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Cicero
To: jaredt112
To: inquest
What allowance did the Federal Const make for federal districts and territories? Were they to be under the jurisprudence of some neighboring or assigned State law?
This is a fun essay and worthwhile to read for understanding ... yet Scalia fails at Schiavo. The Court, even bound by strict originalist Constructionism could have rescued her. No law set by man is greater than the basics of the Creator's Natural Law -- no State can legalize murder.
14
posted on
12/06/2005 5:25:03 PM PST
by
bvw
To: bvw
This is a fun essay and worthwhile to read for understanding ... yet Scalia fails at Schiavo. The Court, even bound by strict originalist Constructionism could have rescued her. No law set by man is greater than the basics of the Creator's Natural Law -- no State can legalize murder.Except it's not the job of the court to uphold the Creator's Natural Law. Its job is to uphold the Constitution.
15
posted on
12/06/2005 5:48:23 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
We disgree. Scalia dances in a bit to the mud in the middle of his essay on this too. No laws work long term in more than insane degree except those that hew to the Creator's Natural Laws as Judges, Legislators (and Juries) discover that law. (sidenotation: Juries are the part of common law the Justice S., and Author S., both seem to have left out of their intellectual loops.)
Yet Scalia and you both turn away from the heavens and tour the mud then so as to declare (ridiculously) that a Constitutionalist can ignore the very and most fundamental issues of Natural Law due to scope. That was not the intent of the Founders, certainly not in their time.
16
posted on
12/06/2005 5:58:16 PM PST
by
bvw
To: bvw
That was not the intent of the Founders, certainly not in their time.The founders did not intend for federal judges to be reviewing state law for compatibility with divine law. If the drafters had announced any such intention, the document would never have been ratified.
17
posted on
12/06/2005 6:02:00 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
You misunderstand the Founders then. I would reply more, maybe tomorrow or the next day. GTG.
18
posted on
12/06/2005 6:09:57 PM PST
by
bvw
To: bvw
If you do, be sure to include some quotes from them that would indicate what you say their view was of the scope of federal judicial authority.
19
posted on
12/06/2005 6:11:45 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: Cicero
My favorite:
"This is an inconvenience, perhaps, but not a contradiction in a system that regards judicial opinions as mere evidence of the law; in a system in which the judicial opinion is the law it produces law that is virtually lawless."
20
posted on
12/06/2005 6:14:03 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson