Comments on: Harriet the Justice

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:18:24 +0000

Jesus also said that not one word of the Torah would pass away, so he obviously had no problem with the divine commands in the Torah to engage in capital punishment, holy war, and other things that on the face of it don’t sound like turning the other cheek. That suggests that turning the other cheek must be within a restricted context. As it turns out, the context is commands to his disciples in how they relate to each other and how they as individuals relate to nonbelievers. It’s not of such wide scope as to require anything like an anti-war, anti-violence message.

Christians also recognize Pauline writings as authoritative, and he makes it quite clear that the power of the sword in the pursuit of justice is divinely mandated, even if it’s not always used wisely or correctly.

By: Crooked Timber » » Miers

Crooked Timber » » Miers — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:55:09 +0000

[...] Last week I said I didn’t know anything about Harriet Miers, but figured that while she would certainly be a staunch Bush loyalist, she would likely not be incompetent or a pushover. I think now I was being a bit optimistic, or at least not precise enough. I still think Miers isn’t an incompetent pushover, in the narrow sense that she’s probably pretty good at the job she currently occupies. It’s just that she has no real qualifications at all for a position on the Supreme Court, and there’s no getting around that. Mark Schmitt gets it right here, by noting the curious parallel to the previous round of nominations to the Appeals Court: The one and only thing to remember about Miers is that she is totally unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. … there’s nothing there. Take away the George W. Bush-loyal-staffer aspect of her resume, and there’s absolutely nothing except some modest corporate law-firm and bar-association management, skills that are of no relevance to the Court. … [...]

By: z

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:46:21 +0000

An evangelical Christian follows the fundamental instructions of Jesus to “Love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek.” Please don’t confuse true evangelicals with people who apply this label to themselves while going to war against Iraq or ANY other country. Also, since we’re talking about the Supreme Court, an evangelical Christian would also take Christ’s teaching literally that state: “Judge not that ye be not judged.” A “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” Christian, upholding literally every teaching of the New Testament, would not agree to participate in ANY war, appear as a judge on ANY court, or even pledge allegiance to ANY earthly flag. After all, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

By: rachel

rachel — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:53:52 +0000

The point of the post was not that women are inherently smarter, tougher, or more competent than men (which, yes, would be just as sexist as the reverse); it was that (for pretty obvious sociological reasons) there is reason to bet that a woman of her generation high up in the world of right-wing politics would be those things. That isn’t at all a sexist thing to say; the only thing wrong with it is that it’s completely false, because Bush places no value on competence, toughness or any other personal qualities other than grovelling loyalty to him personally. I suppose you could argue that in any political subculture the toughest and most competent tend to rise to the top, just as a result of internal competitive pressures, but the Bushies sure look like a counterexample to that one too. I don’t know what’s more disgusting, the cronyism of the appointment or the willingness of the Democrats to let it pass because, hey, at least she’s not demonstrably a fascist or fanatic.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:58:13 +0000

If I were to turn that around, and replace the word woman with man, all sorts of flags would go up.

Right, because you would have reversed the meaning. Funny how that works.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:25:27 +0000

Geoffrey Stone, in case anyone cares, thinks Miers is supremely unqualified.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:13:42 +0000

Anon,
My wife warned me that if I kept reading this site I’d join the Dark Side (liberalism). She’ll be happy to learn I called Scalia a loser today.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:24:31 +0000

Jet—Thank you for your intellectual honesty.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:18:33 +0000

Uncle Kvetch,
I guess I need to reflect on this, because I used to think Scalia was the bulletproof monk of the SC and could say nothing wrong. But you’re right, the reason his dissent doesn’t make sense is that it wasn’t really a legal dissent. It sounds a lot like the prejudiced arguments against equal rights for African Americans. After reading Scalia’s dissent I feel so let down. What a loser.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:00:27 +0000

But there might be some high and mighty Federalist legal reasoning that Scalia is referring to.

I agree that there may be. I just think it’s less than likely, given what I pointed to above: Scalia’s writings on the subject show precious little evidence of intellectual rigor. Instead, they’re impassioned, they’re visceral, they’re personal.

I simply can’t see any way that the quote I cited above could be considered “legal reasoning” at all. One could just as easily write—without being wrong on the facts, mind you—that “Many Americans don’t want Jewish people living next door to them,” “Many Americans don’t want black people using the same water fountains they do,” and for that matter, “Many Americans don’t want fundamentalist Christians teaching their children.” What legal reasoning could possibly be advanced in this way? Those aren’t appeals to Federalism; they’re appeals to bigotry.

It’s also striking to me that Scalia consistently buys into the far-right conception of equality for gay people as an imposition on non-gay people—the old “ramming it down our throats” argument. It’s one thing when an intellectual midget like Santorum says that allowing gays to marry will have a direct and negative impact on his own marriage (he’s never explained why—to my knowledge, he’s never been asked to). It’s quite another when an ostensible legal genius like Scalia buys into the notion that making gay people equal under the law constitues an “imposition” (and he has used that very word) on everyone else.

By: Blitzenn

Blitzenn — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:59:58 +0000

“(2) However, the fact that she’s a woman leads me to think that, unlike the likes of Michael Brown, she’s also competent and probably a pretty tough person”I hate to get thrown in the troll category on my first post, but this comment is sexist and really disgusting to me. If I were to turn that around, and replace the word woman with man, all sorts of flags would go up. Yet when you state that she will surely be competent and tough, simply because she is a woman, nothing is said. That is really really sad. It is quite telling of the mindset of the comments author, and our society as a whole. Discrimination is only unfair in one direction.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:40:16 +0000

Uncle Kvetch,
I really don’t know. I’m a strong believer in gay rights and I’m a strong believer in Federalism (separation of power, but more importantly dilution of power, Rousseau?). This is probably a case where the 14th amendment applies automagically and doesn’t interfere with the concept of Federalism (basic rights for all US citizens). But there might be some high and mighty Federalist legal reasoning that Scalia is referring to. So I don’t know, but it sures seems painfully wrong.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:17:21 +0000

Frankly, I don’t think anyone here has established that fundamentalist (as a descriptive term applied to large swaths of the American public) means “constitutionally incapable of ruling on matters of secular law (which is the basis of our country, our Constitution, and Bill of Rights) without inserting personal religious belief into it.” This seems to be a matter of tautology—I am calling these people fundamentalists and part of my definition of fundamentalist includes inability to engage at law therefore the people I label fundamentalists cannot engage at law.

That doesn’t mean they are in fact incapable of engaging secular law. You are changing the definition midstream—after applying the label. (See the discussion about why people used to self-label as fundamentalist Christians).

Tarring the entire evangelical Christian movement as incapable of engaging in reasoned secular law interpretation is ridiculous, but par for the course.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:04:50 +0000

By the way, Jet—not nitpicking here, just genuinely curious—when you refer to opinions of Scalia’s that “seem so painfully wrong,” are you saying that they’re not, in your opinion, really wrong?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:18:34 +0000

I think it was Lawrence v Texas (not that it matters).

You’re correct; my mistake.

At least he is a full time Federalist even when his opinions seem so painfully wrong.

Well, sort of. When it’s about gay issues, it’s States’ Rights all the way. When it’s about a contested presidential election…meh, not so much.