"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
26.6.03
LAWRENCE V TEXAS: A fine example of how you can reach the right conclusion and still have it be wrong. Of course, sodomy laws are stupid, and there's no real point in having them. Perhaps it is the warping influence of all those polisci classes, but I was under the impression that people elected these guys called legislators to create and change laws. I guess we do that all through SCOTUS now. Anyway, if you want to make the argument that the Left in America is explictly anti-democratic, you'd need look no further than the conversation I had with a friend of mine who told me that the process of passing laws took too long, which is why we need recourse to the courts. I assume that the silliness of that point is obvious.
Anyway, the Court chose the worst possible basis to affirm the obvious: they asserted that there exists, as part of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, a right to privacy that includes the right to have consensual homosexual sex. I'm agnostic, so to speak, on the question of whether privacy rights exist in the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."). If you see privacy as being part of that liberty, it's there, if you don't, then it's not. What bothers me is that there's nothing in the holding of the decision that properly distinguishes the case at hand. No one (Rick Santorum aside) has a problem with the argument that the state has no right to negatively sanction certain types of conduct between properly consenting adults. But this isn't what the Court holds: they categorically reject using ethical standards as a basis for law, even majoritarian ethical standards: "the issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce these views on the whole society through the operation of criminal law. 'Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.' " I defy anyone to show that you couldn't use this ruling as a cornerstone for an argument that incest, pedophelia or bigamy shouldn't be illegal.
But, the best point in the entire decision goes to Scalia, of all people. He rightly notes that the landmark abortion-rights decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that the principle of stare decisis was so strong that it demanded that Roe be upheld, even if a majority of the court felt that it was decided wrongly on the law--the widespread assumption that abortion was legal is reason enough to keep it in place, whatever the facts warrant--which, to Scalia's credit, he rightly pointed out in his dissent was a judgment the legislature was supposed to make. But here, the Court goes to the same lengths to show that stare decisis is no reason to uphold a past judgment if the facts don't support it. He gets great milage out of using this as a stick to beat the majority, and (oddly for him, considering his general gruffness) it's something of a delight to read, if you're familiar with the wonk-iness behind Casey.
But I still think it was a stupid law.
Anyway, the Court chose the worst possible basis to affirm the obvious: they asserted that there exists, as part of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, a right to privacy that includes the right to have consensual homosexual sex. I'm agnostic, so to speak, on the question of whether privacy rights exist in the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."). If you see privacy as being part of that liberty, it's there, if you don't, then it's not. What bothers me is that there's nothing in the holding of the decision that properly distinguishes the case at hand. No one (Rick Santorum aside) has a problem with the argument that the state has no right to negatively sanction certain types of conduct between properly consenting adults. But this isn't what the Court holds: they categorically reject using ethical standards as a basis for law, even majoritarian ethical standards: "the issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce these views on the whole society through the operation of criminal law. 'Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.' " I defy anyone to show that you couldn't use this ruling as a cornerstone for an argument that incest, pedophelia or bigamy shouldn't be illegal.
But, the best point in the entire decision goes to Scalia, of all people. He rightly notes that the landmark abortion-rights decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that the principle of stare decisis was so strong that it demanded that Roe be upheld, even if a majority of the court felt that it was decided wrongly on the law--the widespread assumption that abortion was legal is reason enough to keep it in place, whatever the facts warrant--which, to Scalia's credit, he rightly pointed out in his dissent was a judgment the legislature was supposed to make. But here, the Court goes to the same lengths to show that stare decisis is no reason to uphold a past judgment if the facts don't support it. He gets great milage out of using this as a stick to beat the majority, and (oddly for him, considering his general gruffness) it's something of a delight to read, if you're familiar with the wonk-iness behind Casey.
But I still think it was a stupid law.
23.6.03
22.6.03
19.6.03
LINK: And they say you can't learn anything valuable from TV. PTI pointed me to this very extraordinary column from the Newark Star-Ledger on the second black player in baseball. Read it even if you don't like sports.
17.6.03
FROM: Andrew Sullivan; pass it along:
JULY 9: Here's my proposal. On July 9, as many blogs as possible focus on the struggle for freedom in Iran. It's the anniversary of the pro-democracy protests that have been going on for years. I'll devote the week after July 4 to this issue, culminating in July 9. Please send me links, ideas, articles pertaining to the Iranian struggle in the next few weeks. If you're an Iranian dissident and may perhaps read this somewhere somehow, get in touch, email your thoughts. If you're an Iranian ex-patriate, let me know what you think we need to link to or include. If you're a blogger, make your own plans, and let me know so I can link. Many people have theorized about the power of the web to bring about change and the young generation in Iran must know this as well as any group of people. So let's try and use it - if only to send a symbol of solidarity with those resisting the theo-fascists who have wrecked Iran for three generations.
JULY 9: Here's my proposal. On July 9, as many blogs as possible focus on the struggle for freedom in Iran. It's the anniversary of the pro-democracy protests that have been going on for years. I'll devote the week after July 4 to this issue, culminating in July 9. Please send me links, ideas, articles pertaining to the Iranian struggle in the next few weeks. If you're an Iranian dissident and may perhaps read this somewhere somehow, get in touch, email your thoughts. If you're an Iranian ex-patriate, let me know what you think we need to link to or include. If you're a blogger, make your own plans, and let me know so I can link. Many people have theorized about the power of the web to bring about change and the young generation in Iran must know this as well as any group of people. So let's try and use it - if only to send a symbol of solidarity with those resisting the theo-fascists who have wrecked Iran for three generations.
13.6.03
LINK: Such a blast in defense of Trotskyism, and on National Review, no less. Also contains good jibe against The Nation.
8.6.03
HAHA: New candidate for the stupidest question I've ever been asked at work, made all the more notable by the fact I was asked this not once but three different times:
"You know the meters that have been bagged out there? You know, the ones that say 'no parking?' [pause] Is it okay if I park there?"
"You know the meters that have been bagged out there? You know, the ones that say 'no parking?' [pause] Is it okay if I park there?"
2.6.03
By the same, as a repy to student protestors:
"Very well. We understand the passionate quality of your interest in contemporary affairs--the depth of you concern, the agony of your conscience. We accept your statement that you have learned more from one thing or another you have done by way of participation in the excitments of the present political scene--demonstrations, work in the ghettos and whatnot--than from all your professors and textbooks. We agree that this is all very selfless, very high-minded, very courageous. But what in the hell--if we might be so bold as to ask--are you doing on a university campus?"
"Very well. We understand the passionate quality of your interest in contemporary affairs--the depth of you concern, the agony of your conscience. We accept your statement that you have learned more from one thing or another you have done by way of participation in the excitments of the present political scene--demonstrations, work in the ghettos and whatnot--than from all your professors and textbooks. We agree that this is all very selfless, very high-minded, very courageous. But what in the hell--if we might be so bold as to ask--are you doing on a university campus?"
QUOTES: From my George Kennan book on the 1960s Left:
"It is obvious that students, like Marxists, acutely dislike the feeling of being outflanked to the left."
"Behind this modesty, after all, there has been the recognition of a vitally important truth-- a truth that the Marxists, among others, have never brought themselves to recognize-- namely, that the decisive seat of evil in this world is not in social and political institutions, and not even, as a rule, in the will or iniquities of statesmen, but simply in the weakness and imperfection of the human soul itself, and by that I mean literally every soul, including my own and that of the student militant at the gates."
"It is obvious that students, like Marxists, acutely dislike the feeling of being outflanked to the left."
"Behind this modesty, after all, there has been the recognition of a vitally important truth-- a truth that the Marxists, among others, have never brought themselves to recognize-- namely, that the decisive seat of evil in this world is not in social and political institutions, and not even, as a rule, in the will or iniquities of statesmen, but simply in the weakness and imperfection of the human soul itself, and by that I mean literally every soul, including my own and that of the student militant at the gates."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)