Comments on: Scalia doctrine

By: ts

ts — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 01:09:42 +0000

Scalia is a hypocrite and so are his apologists. They applaud those personal judgments that suit them, and excoriate those who make personal judgments that don’t suit them.
In my experience, “conservative” pretty much equates with “bad person”. They’re the sort who exploit loopholes to avoid their responsibilities, frequently lie to their spouses, family, and friends, tell racist and sexist jokes or privately harbor sexist and racist beliefs, and are generally sociopathic. Some of these sociopaths are quite clever, and are quite good at crafting arguments justifying their bad behavior and bad ethics, but as Lincoln pointed out, even if you call a tail a leg, a dog still only has four legs.

By: Blind Mind's Eye

Blind Mind's Eye — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:04:07 +0000

A challenge to social conservatives who are upset by the Supreme Court ruling on executing minors

A lot of conservatives seem to be upset by the Supreme Court’s ruling that minors cannot be executed, and so it has me wondering about something. Most conservatives agree with Robert Locke’s diseased rant about libertarians when he makes this…

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:13:43 +0000

I find the ruling very good. Argumentation of Justice Kennedy is very impressing and convincing to me. Apart from that, a judge is a man to judge, to decide, not just read laws and be pleased of himself. If justice Scalia doesn`t want to take responsibility and wants sleep well, live without problems, going fishing and smile at water thinking – “I don`t care, that`s the law”, he should consider changing the job. Maybe a postman? Clear conscience, healthy work .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:23:53 +0000

Good point raj, but a lot of folks don’t now think nor did they then think that the SC was the final arbiter. Our history hasn’t been that way either (Lincoln, for instance). Those in favor of a consolidated country were always in favor of every centralizing feature but the consolidators were ever the enemies of free men.

By: raj

raj — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:01:41 +0000

I don’t disagree with my post, but I do think I painted with an over-generalized brush to denounce all judicial review.
You denounce some judicial review? Sorry, but it is fairly obvious that “judicial review” was considered part of “judicial power” when the US constitution was written, as should be clear from the Federalist Papers regarding the Judicial Department (FP 78 and others). They didn’t use the term, but the concept was there, long before Marbury vs Madison.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:32:18 +0000

So if 3/4 of society favors executing homosexuals…then executing them wouldn’t be cruel and unusual punishment?
It violates the principle that the severity of punishments should not exceed the severity of the crimes for which they are prescribed. I do not know if the legal term “cruel and unusual punishment” specifically includes that principle. I know it proscribes certain types of punishment (like drawing and quartering), but I do not know if – or how thoroughly – it sought to enshrine the “eye for an eye” legal ethic that capital sodomy criminalization violates.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:41:36 +0000

I agree with your last comment in its entirety, Joel. The Schiavo case, by the way, has made me very glad I’m not a Florida legislator.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:26:04 +0000

Also, it is possible that my view on this SC opinion represents an extra-Constitutional opinion based on my moral objections to the death penalty. However, conservatives are subject to the same weakness. Consider that the Florida legislature’s attempt to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case was clearly unconstitutional. Yet, the great majority of conservatives, especially Christians, looked the other way because they supported the objective. If the Supreme Court had upheld state bans on abortion in 1973, few conservatives would have cared what the legal reasoning was.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:52:32 +0000

Eric,
If the consensus of society was that the second amendment doesn’t apply to individuals but only to state militias, would it be wrong for the Supreme Court to say that it does so apply?
When the Supreme Court ruled against segregation and against limitations on interracial marriage, it seems they did so against societal consensus that those things were OK. I know that many conservatives objected to those rulings but I think they were correct.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:39:05 +0000

So if 3/4 of society favors executing homosexuals…then executing them wouldn’t be cruel and unusual punishment?
In a theoretical United States in which homosexuality is a crime and capital punishment is not considered a “cruel and unusual punishment” for that crime, it would not violate the 8th Amendment. That does not mean that you and I, as outsiders to that theoretical society, cannot consider it immoral–just as we consider it immoral that slavery was not unconstitutional for many years after the Constitution was ratified.
What other paradigm do you suppose we should use to interpret the 8th Amendment? Who determines what is “cruel and unusual punishment” if not the consensus of society?