Posts Tagged ‘originalism’
In Which Antonin Scalia Sets Out to Completely Break My Spirit, and Succeeds
Today’s hearing on the Voting Rights Act featured some of Scalia’s most breathtaking anti-textualist and ad-hoc reasoning ever. The argument is literally that the Supreme Court is tasked to strike down popular laws because otherwise they’ll be continually reauthorized in perpetuity because people want them. Like the Founders intended!
Just astounding.
More here and here. My sole consolation here is @studentactivism’s shocking discovery that Scalia’s entire term on the Supreme Court is null and void by the well-known Constitutional principle that it doesn’t count if it was unanimous. Article 1. Look it up.
Flim-Flam
This is typical Scalia. He respects precedents when they fit his conservative ideology and disregards them when they don’t. He claims that history should guide judges. But nothing about the history of the commerce clause has changed. What’s changed is the political implications of the commerce clause. When its being invoked for law and order conservatives, he favors Wickard. When invoked by liberals to support healthcare reform, he thinks Wickard is bad law. Once again, we see that Scalia’s originalism is a charade.
Tea Partiers, Jersey, Cheney, Scalia, Guns, 2010, RNC
* Tea Party supporters in New Jersey try to recall Robert Menendez despite the fact that no recall procedure exists for federal legislators under the Constitution. New Jersey Democratic Chairman John Wisniewski is angry about it:
“The attempt to recall Senator Menendez is an affront to the voters of New Jersey and has no standing in law. One day these folks are trying to disprove human evolution, the next day they are challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution. These are radical people who chose Menendez off of a list of Democrats because of the sound of his last name.”
Via Daily Kos.
* Inside the RNC’s secret fundraising strategy memo.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.” Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
And yet it’s the Left that’s supposed to be condescending and arrogant. Conor Friedersdorf is pretty unhappy about all this.
* Former DNC Chair Howard Dean says the pundits are misreading 2010: the mood is anti-incumbent, not anti-Democrat.
* Firedoglake gets nostalgic for the Cheney doctrine, which says we should invade other countries at the slightest probability of danger but apparently doesn’t apply to protecting the only planet we will ever have.
* And The Wall Street Journal, of all places: So Where’s Your Originalism Now, Justice Scalia?
Justice Scalia insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is right there in the text, which of course is true. But so too is the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which, unlike the Court’s due process jurisprudence, has a historical meaning that helps define and limit the rights it was meant to protect.
At the McDonald argument, it seemed obvious that five or more justices will vote to apply the Second Amendment to the states. . . . But it was also obvious that most were deeply afraid of following a text whose original meaning might lead them where they do not want to go.
Via MyDD. More on the Chicago gun case at SCOTUSblog.
Tuesday Late Night
* A major earthquake has hit Haiti, throwing the nation into chaos and likely causing massive loss of life. The U.S. ambassador to Haiti has called it “a catastrophe of major proportions.” Rolling coverage at MetaFilter.
* Google has announced it is reversing its stance of compliance with Chinese government censorship.
* Murdoch unhappy with Ailes and Fox News? Children always grow up into monsters.
* Every spring, Patterson runs a policy simulation designed to illustrate the difficulty of operating an organization in the context of asymmetric and limited information. Every fall, I run a two hour mini-simulation designed to give students a sense of how the larger simulation will play out. In my first year, I did zombies; the year after was the aftermath of Independence Day, and last year I asked our 35 first year graduate students to develop a strategy for containing or killing Godzilla. Since vampires seem to be in the news lately, this year I chose a vampire oriented scenario.
* And now Scalia looooooooves foreign legal precedent. Originalism sure is complicated!
Happy Canada Day
Happy Canada Day. Let’s celebrate with links.
* SEK considers Infinite Summer’s weird morbidity (yes, it is weird), as well as the murky fluidity that constitutes literary “generations.” Despite the many other projects that already threaten to consume July I’ve decided to halfheartedly participate in this, and may even post about once I’ve caught up to where I’m supposed to already be in the book.
* “Pseudo-Liveblogging Tenure Denial”: just reading the headline is enough to fill me with dread.
* Richard Dawkins helps fund the world’s least-fun summer camp.
* Following up on my post about Ricci and originalism from earlier in the week, in which as usual the comments are better than the post, here’s Chuck Todd on MSNBC calling out the judicial activism to a speechless Joe Scarborough.
* Wal-Mart on the side of the angels? The monolith has endorsed an employer mandate in health care.
* Video games as murder simulators? The same claim can be made about just about any immersive media experience (and has been), with the existence of negative effects always taken as obvious but never actually demonstrated. (via /.)
* I have only vague memories of the original Alien Nation, though it’s been in my Netflix queue for a while—so I’m glad to see rumors of a sequel series helmed by Angel‘s Tim Minear. More at Sci-Fi Wire.
* Sainthood in America: the Archdiocese of Baltimore may soon recommend a local 19th-century priest to the Vatican for canonization. I found it an interesting look at the balancing act that must now be played when looking for miracles in an age of science:
“Something worked very well,” said Dr. Larry Fitzpatrick, chief of surgery at Mercy Medical Center, who will serve as medical expert on the archiocesan committee.
Preparing for his committee role, Fitzpatrick spoke to specialists at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“They’ve all got a few stories like this,” he said. “Is this woman really any different from these, what I would call ‘statistically improbable’ cases? The outcome is very unusual, but it’s not the only one.”
Fitzpatrick said his role on the panel is to be the scientist, to “be the Doubting Thomas,” but as a Catholic, he says, he must entertain the possibility of a supernatural cause.
What method could one possibly use to divide what is merely “statistically improbable” from what is “genuinely miraculous”?
Ricci
Excitement on the SCOTUS beat as the Court overturns the lower court Ricci decision in a 5-4 vote along the usual partisan breakdown. Since Sonia Sotomayor had been part of the Second Circuit’s upholding of the original decision, now overturned, this decision will undoubtedly receive a lot of attention even beyond the usual contentiousness that surrounds affirmative action. I haven’t followed the case closely enough to say much of anything about it—and to be fair it sounds like an especially hard case—though my gut reaction to any 5-4 decision from the Roberts court closely matches this take from conservative columnist Ramesh Ponnuru in the New York Times:
The debates on these issues are highlighting a deep inconsistency in the way my fellow conservatives approach race and the law. Many conservatives oppose Judge Sotomayor’s nomination because she does not appear to support originalism, the notion that legal texts, including the Constitution, should be interpreted according to the meaning that the informed public assumed them to have when they became law. We argue as well that judges should try to overcome the biases of their backgrounds in the name of self-restraint. But when it comes to the race cases before the Supreme Court, too many conservatives abandon both originalism and judicial restraint.
Where Ponnuru and I differ, of course, is in his belief that originalism as a judicial philosophy has any useful content whatsoever. I don’t think it does; as I’ve said before, it’s a rhetorical strategy, not a method, deployed when convenient and passed over when not.
Defining Originalism Down
Here’s a clip from tonight’s Hardball in which the Judicial Confirmation Network’s Wendy Long makes the remarkable claim that Brown v. Board of Ed was an originalist court decision. I hadn’t heard this talking point before, but apparently the right has been trying to figure out some way to spin Brown as an originalist decision for some time. Keep at it, guys! I’m sure you’ll crack the code someday.
On the other hand, given that “originalism” as a judicial philosophy denotes only the median conservative position on any given issue at any given moment in time, I suppose Brown is an originalist position after all…