thomas
A pleasure to see you.
Quote:There are many reasons why I wish that one day I'll wake up and find that the Bush presidency was just a bad dream.
We've had the same dream. On waking, one looks at the tousled head on the other pillow, ruefully remembering all that went on, and one just feels sooooo defiled and dirty. All in all, a very catholic response yet, curiously, I doubt Scalia shares it with us.
Quote:You make it sound as if one needs a mandate before one can assert that laws, including the constitution, actually mean what they say. One doesn't.
If a law, or a constitutional passage, were to say "2 plus 2 equals 4" or "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech" then we would have a pretty good handle on what it is the law says and what those sentences mean. But of course it isn't so simple. If in one's family, there's a clearly stated rule that "one must not hit one's brothers" then that's clear enough. But what if one has sisters too? Perhaps born after the rule was put into place? One could hew to the letter of that family law and fight doggedly against a 'modernist' extrapolation of inherant principle. But there are pretty good reasons to posit that such a strategy, as handily black and white at it is, and with its comforting nod to maintained connection with the 'good ole days', also invites the same potentially explosive consequence as does any similar anal-retention urge.
Quote:Moreover, if the mainstream judicial philosophy disagrees, if it holds that the constitution only establishes abstract principles of political philosophy, and that it's up to the courts to give real-world meaning to those abstract principles -- why wouldn't one conclude that the mainstream is the problem, and its originalist dissenters are the (imperfect) solution?
I think you get tripped up here with the use of 'only'. Scalia himself, for example, shows some latitude on matters of race relations. Either solution, in extremis, looks quite unsuitable. So the issue looks to be one of rejecting absolutes, accepting imperfection, and then doing the best one can - but that means reference to basic principles. And it surely does also entail a reasonable acceptance of changing standards (I'd guess you have little difficulty with Kennedy's acknowledgement of what other high courts in the world have written).
I briefly considered joining the expected jihaad against Roberts, but have rejected that now. He appears to be an impressive fellow. We'll see if he is more extreme than he is being presented (including, by himself). That the christian right is all happy with the fellow doesn't bode well but god only knows what PR and future appointment agreements have been made between Rove and his base.
Good one!