Permalinks were invented for a reason, Labs.
I like this segment from last month's Washington Monthly:
"There are problems, however, with many of originalism's claims to the theoretical high ground. It is not clear, for example, that ratification can be fairly characterized as a democratic act since the ratifiers hardly included a representative sampling of women and minorities. It is also unclear that the ratifiers themselves intended future courts to folllow their understanding of the Constitution."
Also:
"[originalism] is the theory of the moment with the ascendent legal right, it is not Holy Writ and has never actually been the dominant school of constitutional interpretation at the Supreme Court."
They do have problems with Griswold. Not only is it the genesis of the right to privacy in those words, it's also the opinion that used the terms 'penumbras' and 'emanations' to describe areas of Constitutionally protected rights not particularly described in the text of the Bill of Rights. This doesn't necessarily mean that any given originalist wants to ban birth control, but they really dislike Griswold.
If it helps, I don't get the Land's End catalogue.
You know, Labs, the Corner and Ann Coulter before lunch? Are you doing penance?
Scrolling down the page on that GIS link . . . Holy crap! Tell me the one labeled bagger288.jpg isn't the scariest-ass machine you've ever seen!
LB's right, the legal objections (from conservatives) to Griswold and Roe are largely the same. However, only with Roe is there a large supply of catchy slogans for posters.
1. I am sure the marginal cost to Land's End is minimal. If I ran a catalogue company I would send seven duplicates to a household that actually bought anything.
2. LB is precisely right. I can't convey in text the disgust with which originalists usually utter the word "penumbra." It's like Seinfeld's "Neuman."
The article, btw, also lists some consequences of originalism which the authors thinks conservaives might not want. Such things as ending legal protection for birth contol, and for equal protection and treatment of minorities and women. And it opens up the possibility for State religions.
One hopes a majority of conservatives don't want these things...
Permalinks were invented for a reason, Labs.
In partial defense of Labs, DeLong's old URL uses distasteful frame wankage to display his new TypePad page, with the side effect that browsers trained on the old top-level URL never show anything but the old top-level URL, even after a click on a (new URL) permalink.
Brad is a chart that looks suspiciously like Sott McClellan the Excavator.
And in unrelated news, I just tried to get to this page by typing www.unfogged.om into the URL bar. Sadly it turned out to be a dead link.
You know Michael, there's a famous argument that benevolent Monarchs are the worst kind: the people get so used to someone else doing the right thing for them, that they lose the habits of self-government . This is bad in itself, and makes them even more vulnerable should a bad King follow the good one. Could an activist court be analogized to the monarch, and the democratic legislative process to "the people." Perhaps.
Also, condoms make baby Jesus cry.
So stop feeding him condoms.
But, baa, maybe the activist courts simply want to emulate the Dao, eliminating the need for benevolence and rightousnessby restoring us to our natural harmony.
maybe the activist courts simply want to emulate the Dao
The Constitution can be talked about, but not the Eternal Constitution.
Amendments can be made, but not the eternal Amendment.
As the origin of penumbras, it is nameless.
As the mother of the three branches, it is nameable.
So, as ever hidden, we should interpret its inner essence.
As always manifest, we should look at its specific clauses.
These two flow from the same source, though differently named;
And both are called the Constitution.
The Constitution of constitutions is the Door of all essence.
The "emanations" language brings to mind the Sephiroth, Eyn Sof, etc. Fun project: define constitutional law by asserting what it isn't.
Constitutional law is not a kumquat.
If you read Griswold, it's hard to come to the conclusion that a primary reason for the decision, if not the only reason, was that it involved a married couple. "Sanctity of the marital bedroom" and all that. NTTAWWT.
Submitted for your approval: Ugh for ogged, my original fictitious email address for an email address. Is there a Persian among us? Or an Iranian-American, even? I do catch a distinct whiff of chlorine.
30 hours since the last comment, but I swear my net connection was down...
Do I understand correctly that Coulter objects that Griswold was decided on bad legal grounds, and prefers that the Supreme Court of the United States had based their decision on common sense -- that is, no legal grounds whatsoever? And thinks that would not have opened the door to "judicial activism"?
Much as it pains me to defend Coulter, you've got her backwards. She's claiming that the Court did decide on the basis of common sense, and objecting to that.
although the concept that abortion = fork in baby's head does not allow for a similar defense.
although the concept that abortion = fork in baby's head does not allow for a similar defense.
and I'll say it thrice. well no, I won't.
Dr. Forkinbaby is a delightful utterance. Too bad it could serve only the most repugnant kind of politics.
Why do the villains get all the best names? I'm looking at you, Beelzebub.
well I wish you'd stop. It makes me uncomfortable.
Funny...today, when I look at the Coulter excerpt, it says exactly what you (LB) say it says, and yet last night, when I was tired, it didn't. Quite a mystery.
