Friday, April 11, 2008
Churchy State
Typically I appreciate that Scalia is at least consistent, and I recognize that there must be boundaries to interpretation, but this just makes me nervous. I'm sure his reaction would be, "well then amend it." MFT, we had a discussion recently about whether or not this country was founded on religion, I'm interested to see your reaction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
you get the tar, i'll get the feathers.
I doubt Scalia has time to read how, like the rest of us, Jefferson was a paradox and contradiction. And by read, I mean take in a bit of the 34+ volumes of the Jefferson papers that have been put out by Princeton University Press (it's still growing). Hell, there are still lawyers in Virginia who deny that Jefferson banged Sally Hemings — which he did, and which I think was a great thing. Christopher Hitchens notes the bigotry and racism inherent in the majority of Jefferson historiography that would simply dismiss this "allegation" on the grounds of "Jefferson's character." Holy shit: like Hitchens, one wonders whether these "humanities" scholars ever thought about pussy in the first place. Probably a bunch of biggoted homos.
Anyhow, the authority on Jefferson banging Hemings these days is Annette Gordon-Reed, a prof of law I think at New York University.
Now, is this a country founded on religion, or on secularism. This is a loaded question, and you can find evidence for either, and this is why it's a great country. I say sure, let religion be allowed in the public sphere on the grounds that it's another idea. But it should not have a monopoly on the public grounds. As a full-blown infidel, I enjoy arguing with these religious nut jobs anyhow. What the fuck else would I do if they took that away from me?
“If you want to enact a statute that says the president can never say ‘God bless America,’ then I have no problem with that. Just don’t tell me that the Constitution prohibits it.”
Well put, Tony. Scalia is da man!
I think that if Scalia and I ever sat down for beers, we would disagree on damn near every political issue we discussed. I have a profound respect for him as a member of the judiciary, however. He adheres to a judicial philosophy, not a political ideology. I'm sure there have been times (the Hamdi case, for example when he has cringed at his own opinions, but regardless of the political ramifications, he steadfastly adheres to a legal perspective and philosophy of interpretation. He is an independent jurist if one ever existed.
And ai, let's never, ever, ever forget this: You just said a fucking SHYSTER was "da man." ;)
Post a Comment