Can you give context to this? Who is speaking in the two colors? What was the context of the original article? I am assuming that the red is someone's rebuke?
I can't see why anyone is paying attention to this foolish man's opinion. It isn't like his status as a bad writer makes him wiser and more deserving of status than anyone else.
Maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places, but so far OSC's is the fullest, (for the first half) calmest, and *superficially* the most reasonable statement of a particular set of views I've ever found; That makes it (a) dangerous, in that people who like to think of themselves as calm, reasonable, and fair-minded are more likely to be taken in by it (or at least some of it) than by the hasty rhetoric they hear in TV soundbites; (b) worth exploring and challenging, because in doing so one can better understand where folks of his mindest are coming from, and prepare a useful set of rebuttals for when any of his points get made elsewhere.
I'm indebted to sff_corgi for the analysis/rebuttal, even though it is incomplete. (My sympathies: I've had my share of getting into arguments where I can't remember the references I need, and my text books are all stored 50 miles away and I don't have the time to hunt through 'em anyway! =:o} )
Except he specifically goes out of his way to say it is not the court's perogative to make vast social sweeping changes, when that is EXACTLY what the court is supposed to do- uphold the constitutional law even lesser laws are in disagreement. Hell, that's how every frigging thrid grader in a US government lesson would tell you it works- the Court's checks and balances is the ability to null laws from outside the democratic process, providing a check against the tyrrany of the majority.
Roe vs Wade. Brown vs Board of Education. Gideon vs (I believe) the State of Missippi. That's from the top of my head. The Massechuetes Supreme Court is uphold a fine tradition of judicial non-restraint, which has typically heralded changes in our culture; changes which, chaotic at first, settle down as almost universal improvements given time.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-27 06:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-27 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-27 08:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-27 07:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-27 08:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-28 03:03 am (UTC)I'm indebted to sff_corgi for the analysis/rebuttal, even though it is incomplete. (My sympathies: I've had my share of getting into arguments where I can't remember the references I need, and my text books are all stored 50 miles away and I don't have the time to hunt through 'em anyway! =:o} )
Thanks also to
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-28 03:46 am (UTC)I believe...
Date: 2004-02-28 09:35 am (UTC)Roe vs Wade. Brown vs Board of Education. Gideon vs (I believe) the State of Missippi. That's from the top of my head. The Massechuetes Supreme Court is uphold a fine tradition of judicial non-restraint, which has typically heralded changes in our culture; changes which, chaotic at first, settle down as almost universal improvements given time.
Re: I believe...
Date: 2004-02-28 03:08 pm (UTC)Which one of my points is this meant to be countering?