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".
