There are certain experiences which cannot be aptly described with words. My rhetorical competance is found wanting when I talk about this, so please bear with me in this narrative. The thing I need to talk about is my recent conversion to the legal doctrine of originalism, following a reading of A Matter of Interpretation, by Justice Scalia. It's a well crafted essay about how the court has overstepped their ascribed boundaries in the activist interpretations of the constitution over the past fifty years - along with responses by a number of academics. But that's not what makes me love this man. I love him becuase of how he runs that game. Check this out:
Thus, when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down. [n.1] Such a venerable and accepted tradition is not to be laid on the examining table and scrutinized for its conformity to some abstract principle of First-Amendment adjudication devised by this Court. To the contrary, such traditions are themselves the stuff out of which the Court's principles are to be formed. They are, in these uncertain areas, the very points of reference by which the legitimacy or illegitimacy of other practices are to be figured out. When it appears that the latest "rule," or "three-part test," or "balancing test" devised by the Court has placed us on a collision course with such a landmark practice, it is the former that must be recalculated by us, and not the latter that must be abandoned by our citizens. I know of no other way to formulate a constitutional jurisprudence that reflects, as it should, the principles adhered to, over time, by the American people, rather than those favored by the personal (and necessarily shifting) philosophical dispositions of a majority of this Court.
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois? More like Rutan's Ass v. Scalia's Left Foot.
Or check out what he said in Romer v. Evans:
The central thesis of the Court's reasoning is that any group is denied equal protection when, to obtain advantage (or, presumably, to avoid disadvantage), it must have recourse to a more general and hence more difficult level of political decisionmaking than others. The world has never heard of such a principle, which is why the Court's opinion is so long on emotive utterance and so short on relevant legal citation.
Oh snap. Knock, knock. Who's there? Scalia. Scalia who? Scalia's got your ass in check, Supreme Court of Colorado. Now who's trying to make homosexuals a suspect class, bitch?
Seriously. I'm ready to name my children Antonin. I'm trying to get tickets for oral arguments this season, but I have to say, if I could score some backstage passes, I might just die. Honestly, I just can't do this man justice. If you think you can handle the Ruckus, you should watch a lecture of his. He's dreamy.
cranked out at 7:59 PM | |
|template © elementopia 2003|