Thank you, Robert. Judy Evans, Cardiff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Paul" <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:42 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iran (2), First Front > Judy Evans quotes Lawrence: > > "Alito indicated this was his opinion regarding the duties of a judge. > You examine a law in terms of whether it complies with the constitution, > bill of rights & precedents. You do not voice an opinion based upon your > beliefs." > > and replies: > > > I think perhaps one of the philosophers here will have > > something to say about this paragraph (come on, boys!, > > I'm sleepy). > > A philosopher says (but not as a philosopher) that if that were all > a judge did, they'd let philosophers do it. 'Strict construction,' > 'legislating from the bench,' and other buzz phrases, are simply > political epithets, both in the strict and in the pejorative senses. > Of course judges, even the Supremes give opinions based on their > beliefs, very importantly upon their beliefs about the meanings of words. > > In Brown vs. Board of Education, the majority opinion begins: > > '(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as > to its intended effect on public education. > > '(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined, > not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment > was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public > education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.' > > In Griswold v. Connecticut, the opinion, in favor of Griswold, who was > challenging a Connecticut law (which prohibited giving advice on, or > prescribing, methods of contraception, even to married persons), says, > in passing, before it gets to the heart of the matter: > > 'The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in > the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the > parents' choice—whether public or private or parochial—is also not > mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any > foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include > certain of those rights.' > > 'Construed,' that is, by human beings wrestling with the language of the > Constitution, and who, in virtue of their prior beliefs about the > meanings of words and the extensions of concepts, disagree among > themselves. > > Skipping about: > > The Fifteenth Amendment, seems to come out of nowhere, from a legal > point of view. From a sociological (and ideological) point of view, it > makes sense. But it would only make sense if its supporters believed > that blacks were human beings with full citizenship, who could (if > others could) vote. I say, 'if others could,' because intitially, this > amendment was taken to establish no right: it simply meant, and still, > strictly speaking, means that no one can be prevented from voting > because of race or prior conditions of servitude. > > That blacks were not human beings in some full sense was a belief held > by many when this country was founded. Some few no doubt still have such > a belief. But one cannot have this belief and in good faith support the > Fifteenth Amendment. > > Beliefs matter. To think that the prior beliefs of the Supremes don't > matter is to see them as robots, not human judges. > > For information about SCOTUS, and the Constitution, I'd suggest > > www.oyez.org and http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html