What, no jiggery-pokery? I guess everyone else has been making applesauce of that already.
That’s the problem with judicial necromancy - ouija boards are generally considered unreliable as a source of law.
Originalism is sort of like protestantism: the idea that you should discard the corruptions that have grown up over time and simply return to the plain meaning of the original is seductive; but you have only to look at the number of mutually incompatible sects to see that the ‘plain meaning’ is somewhere between brutally non-obvious and a pure illusion.
In Scalia’s case, it really doesn’t help that he’s on the supreme court, rather than one of the lower courts. Guess what, if a case makes it to the supreme court; that means that apparently the law at hand is either severely ill-understood even by multiple lower courts, or the situation isn’t actually covered very well by any available law.
Sure, there are many, many, cases where the application of law is relatively unambiguous legal-technician stuff. Those aren’t the ones that make it to the top. Scalia would really be much better suited to that sort of environment.
Necrolaw is a respected field of study compated to necronomics or necrosociology.
It’s a good thing Scalia didn’t ask if kowtowing to a purely religious belief that marriage should be limited to people of two different sexes violated the Establishment Clause. Then some 18th century hippie heads really would rolled.
Sadly it isn’t necro- but geronto-.
Even Scalia’s language betrays that he’d rather be living in the 19th century.
(This phrase is quickly becoming part of my regular daily vocabulary. Thank you Justice Scalia!)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.