Posted on 01/16/2005 9:26:57 AM PST by The Drowning Witch
http://www.allanfavish.com/ajf_response_to_decision.htm
Regards,
Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com
The problem with the sodomy case, is that the moral judgments of foreign jurisdictions were deemed relevant, and judgments are not lines of reasoning. I suppose one could argue say with the death penalty, that what is deemed cruel and unusual is an evolving standard, rather than what were the morays at the time the Constitution was written, and then argue that what is currently deemed cruel and unusual should be based on an international standard rather than an American standard. The problem with the death penalty, is one is trying to apply some words that are inherently ambiguous, "cruel and unusual," which ARE in the Constitution.
The matter is complex. Where lines of reasoning end and judgments begin is not a bright line. There are often no neat little formlae available to apply in tough legal cases, which relieves one from hard thinking.
In particular, with reference to this thread, in a discussion about why to elect Republicans despite their all being fire-breathing Christian fundamentalists, I advocated originalist interpretation on the Supreme Court. The DUmmies only argued that there's no such thing.
FYI
That was my question? Who determines the standards by which a court ruling can be cited? African? South American? What a mess.
"Garbage in, garbage out," or so the saying goes.
"Garbage in, garbage out," or so the saying goes.
Crap. Cruddy post didn,t show so I hit it again. Oh well...
The program is available to watch anytime by going to cspan.org, and clicking on "Justices Scalia & Breyer Discussion on Foreign Courts' Impact".
Agree but, in this guy's case, the preponderant problem is most definitely on the output side. IMHO Scalia is the type of judge needed at all levels of the judiciary. Breyer should be on a very local rural planning commission somewhere.
Thanks for the ping. Only caught the last half hour, so thanks for the transcript.
You're welcome! Glad you caught part of it because the contrast between the two is even more evident when you watch them.
He came off as a complete lightweight proving he had no business being on the Court in the first place.
Scalia proved his brilliance and he deserves to be named Chief Justice.
In theory, you could draw useful ideas from the proceedings from foreign courts, even Islamic courts. Pico della Mirandola argues, in "De dignitate Hominis," that you should draw wisdom from any source where you find it, and indeed the first authority he cites (with deliberate provocation) is Abdul the Saracen.
But that's theory. In practice, the American constitution, American law, and American practice are far more relevant and likely to be useful.
There's a big difference between having the kind of judgment that will let you find wisdom in unlikely places and the lack of good judgment that leads you to follow trendy opinions like a sheep because someone says they are politically correct. I'd say that Scalia has wisdom, and Breyer never rises above the trendy.
Hey, Europe is trendy right now among the elite. So let's ransack their legal writings to find ideas that will help us proclaim sodomy to be a Univeral Human Right.
Right. C-SPAN has a link to the video but it's been inoperable for days.
It was and is operable for me.
Hmm. Is it in RealTime?
I just click the link and get the video, like magic. Real Player is used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.