2
   

Was the Dred Scott reference code for Roe v. Wade?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:23 am
Quote:
Blatham wrote:
But Scalia is not properly understood as merely an isolated and fine legal mind. He has significant social and philosophical ties to this administration (hunting with Cheney, his son works for Ted Olson's law firm, he has given speeches to anti-gay advocacy groups, etc).

Thomas: Fine. So for the sake of the argument, let's suppose Scalia is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-women and corrupt. How does this change whether his constitutional views are correct or not -- which happens to be the question I'm interested in?


It wouldn't...if there was an objectively 'correct' answer to the question like "1 + 1 = ?".

Your response to Dworkin's piece puzzles me. Did you assume he must be some leftist weirdo journalist simply on the basis blatham linked it? Any interest in a careful discussion of the piece? I'd wager we could talk joe and soz into participating.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 08:59 am
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 09:10 am
I think Thomas has indicated (with unusual grace) (not unusual for him, unusual for people in general) that he already gets that last point.

I don't have any particular opinion on Dworkin, Ronald, though I'm not much of a fan of Dworkin, Andrea.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:59 am
soz

Re Dworkin...on the linked page here, those pieces in blue text are still available free.
http://www.nybooks.com/archives/search?author_name=Ronald+Dworkin&title=&reviewed_author=&reviewed_item=&form=&year=
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 06:56 pm
blatham wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Fine. So for the sake of the argument, let's suppose Scalia is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-women and corrupt. How does this change whether his constitutional views are correct or not -- which happens to be the question I'm interested in?

It wouldn't...if there was an objectively 'correct' answer to the question like "1 + 1 = ?".

I grant you that in questions of jurisprudence, there are shades of gray and leeway for commonsense judgment. How does it make a difference now?

blatham wrote:
Your response to Dworkin's piece puzzles me. Did you assume he must be some leftist weirdo journalist simply on the basis blatham linked it?

I didn't. My beef is with this particular article, I didn't make any assumptions about Dworkin, and I repeated it in my next response that I didn't. I will hereby repeat it again right now. I would appreciate it if I didn't have to repeat it a third time.

blatham wrote:
Any interest in a careful discussion of the piece? I'd wager we could talk joe and soz into participating.

I am interested, but can't promise any particular investment of time in the discussion. I'm travelling, so will be online infrequently.

joefromchicago wrote:
I guess I'm as puzzled as blatham is by your reaction to Dworkin's article. I don't see any mention of "original intent" jurisprudence anywhere, although Dworkin writes in general terms about "conservative" or even "reactionary judges.

... and that's exactly what bothers me. It's the same rhetorical trick Republican pundids use when they call Paul Krugman "shrill", and talk (in general terms) about the "fact" that Democrats are tree-hugging, gay-loving elitists. They rarely mention that Krugman's has a good reason for his shrillness -- for example, his forecast of an emerging, Argentina-style balance-of-payment crisis in America is frighteningly real. Neither do they mention that Democrats may have good reasons for protecting the environment and gay rights.

You have all read such articles by conservatives. Would you consider it valid if a Republican offered a defense like this? "Hey, wait a minute -- the author never talks about fiscal policy, nor does he ever consider any arguments about gay rights or environmental protection. So what are you so annoyed about?" Of course you wouldn't accept this defense, and rightly so. Because the very fact that the author doesn't talk about it is the problem.

And this is exactly the problem I have with this article of Dworkin's. As you, Joe, are correct to point out, he "writes in general terms about 'conservative' or even 'reactionary' judges". If he had talked about the Bush administration that way, I would have no problem with that because practically every substantive argument this administration ever offers turns out to be Orwellian bullcrap. But the conservative judges Dworkin talks about have good substantive reasons for reaching the conclusions they reach. And given that these reasons exist -- even though you may not agree with them -- I find it dishonest of Dworking not to mention them.

Hence my "evident annoyance".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 09:37 pm
To discuss Dworkin's piece... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=982898#982898

I'm away (flying at 4AM...jesus!) to the mid-west until after the election.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 09:10 am
Thomas wrote:
But the conservative judges Dworkin talks about have good substantive reasons for reaching the conclusions they reach. And given that these reasons exist -- even though you may not agree with them -- I find it dishonest of Dworking not to mention them.

Hence my "evident annoyance".

No doubt the judges that Dworkin would call "conservative" or "reactionary" have substantive reasons for reaching their decisions; whether those reasons are "good" or not is another matter entirely. And I don't fault Dworkin for failing to go into those reasons: it is, after all, a short opinion piece for a non-specialist publication, not a law review article.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2022 at 01:46:51