Letters to the Editor
-
modenastradale
I don't mean to be spiralling off into pointless academic quibbling. My only point was that judicial interpretations must always rely on someone's value judgments. That is why social change effected by the courts brings more controversy than social change effected by democratic processes.
As for Brown v. Board, perhaps you are aware that there are respected legal scholars -- I'm not one of them -- who think that decision was improper, whatever its practical and historical value was. The same criticisms have been applied with greater force to Roe v. Wade and its offspring. Court rulings are never immune from criticism.
You can add Dred Scott v. Sanford to your list of examples.
P.S. "Pointless academic quibbling"? No such thing.
-
@ laurel962
Did you read a single word of what Glenn wrote? Did you understand it? Why is it that he managed to address -- in advance, in his post -- the 'objections' you came up with?
Cheers,
-
Arne
It is true that the DoMA does this, but whether it would withstand the "full faith and credit" clause in a properly presented case is another matter (although, with the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalito, that's not a sure thing despite what Article V, Section I says).
Yup - I gave my analysis of that here (see last point):
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/permalink/bbab7f79e84150e182b9aa6b79cd193f.html
-
A Discrete and Insular Minority
Of particular significance is the fact that the court determined that sexual orientation is a suspect classification that requires strict scrutinty of the restrictive statutes. This is, I believe, a first and will have broad immplications in California and perhaps beyond.
-- dplawyer
I took note of that, too. I almost think it's more significant than the main holding, if only for California's purposes.
As for federal law, I had a law professor who used to call the failure of the Supreme Court to designate homosexuals as a suspect class the "gay exception to the Constitution." I wonder how, in light of all the kerfuffle, the same people who are so angry about this decision can also try to claim that homosexuals aren't a "discrete and insular minority."
-
You tell 'em!
First of all, precedent is merely a garbage heap
Naughty boy, you needn't flatter our host. But Gosh, I'm sure you would know just how to ingratiate yourself at a discussion of this.
-
Spinning like a Top
I don't mean to be spiralling off into pointless academic quibbling.
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that, if I were you.
-
Some eedjit is stoopid or a liar:
Somehow I have little doubt that Mr. Paw can't even say "equal treatment under the law" (7-2) where it pertains to the 2000 election without doing St. Vitus dance.
There was no "7-2" decision.
What's worse is that the cowardly, anonymous per curiam, while mouthing the words "equal protection", demanded a remedy that ensured that the very "equal protection violation" they claimed to be so concerned about (namely, that different counties would count ballots differently) would indeed be left standing. They stopped the one count that would have had all the state recount under the auspices of a single judge, and with (hopefully) as close to uniform standards as possible in the circumstances, and left in place the mish-mash of no recounts, partial recounts, and full recounts that resulted in the only outcome the majority really cared about: The 537 vote 'victory' for Dubya.....
So the answer: "Stoopid" or "liar"? I vote both.
Cheers,
-
@L.W.M.
gene poo...
That made me chuckle before you associated it with sh**ter.
:)
-
At Last!
As for Brown v. Board, perhaps you are aware that there are respected legal scholars -- I'm not one of them -- who think that decision was improper,...
A fact no-one can deny.
-
modenastradale
Ay, there's the rub: precedent is a judicial philosophy too. First of all, precedent is merely a garbage heap (or beautifully intricate arrangement, however you view it) of past decisions. How were those past decisions reached? More importantly, how was the first decision in the line reached?
You're wildly overstating this case. There is some precedent that is confused and some that is clear. There were some original decisions that were easily reached and some more difficult. There are times when all relevant metrics (the clear language of the statute/constitution, the rules of construction, legislative history, precedent) point to one outcome and times when they are mixed.
Either way, my point stands: there are rules and methodologies for legal reasoning, and if you studiously ignore those, then you can't possibly construct a reasoned argument about whether a judicial opinion is valid.
The fact that those methods are sometimes difficult to apply doesn't change that point at all.
As for Brown v. Board, perhaps you are aware that there are respected legal scholars -- I'm not one of them -- who think that decision was improper, whatever its practical and historical value was. The same criticisms have been applied with greater force to Roe v. Wade and its offspring. Court rulings are never immune from criticism.
Perhaps you're aware that there are "respected legal scholars" who say that the President did not act illegally when he violated FISA or ordered torture. Allegations of lawbreaking and jury findings are never immune from criticism.
Does that mean those questions are all indeterminate, that there is no one answer more valid than the other, that it's just all a big crapshoot and rolling dice or picking answers out of a hat are as valid as any other methods for determining the right answer? That's the logical conclusion of what you're arguing.
-
"Eliza"/Electro SpamBot says:
I know, I'll start a blog that blames everything in the world on Gays then let's see what Glenn has to say.
Please do. Then you can vent your "Kill the jooz" rants repeated ad nauseam there, and bother us here no longer. That would be the polite thing to do.
FWIW, Electro SpamBot is about as off-topic as it can get here. That's sufficient reason for a ban, to my mind. If Glenn wants to give one warning before bringing the axe down, that would be indulgent, but OK.
Cheers,