as it seems the gist of the article is that the U.S. Constitution speaks for itself and doesn't need Supreme Court to explain it... i find it odd that the author appeals to Thomas Jefferson for clarification. DOESN'T it speak for itself? how many times have i read conservatives saying that private & public comments by various founding fathers of the U.S. have no bearing whatsoever on the Constitution's authority over "church & state" issues, etc. is the Constitution so simple and straightforward as to be self-explanatory, or does it require elaboration in order to be understood & applied? the author seems to want it both ways.
a couple of other comments in the article struck me as a little overboard.
this is cheap. why can't political columnists resist this kind of stuff? "their opinion differs from mine and therefore means that they have less reverence for (sacred object) than i do." may as well cry infidel or traitor, while one's at it.Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document.
the author must know quite well how long-winded, rambling and prone to irrelevant tangents that judicial opinions often are. judges are supposed to use their judicial opinions to provide legal justifications, precedents, etc for their decisions... but there's not much stopping them from slipping all sorts of philosophical/religious/sociological/etc stuff into it. and so it isn't difficult to find something seemingly left-field in their opinions if you poke around a bit. conservative judges are by no means immune to including inappropriate comments in their judicial opinions, either. the judge's reference to "international opinion" would be one brief tangent in an otherwise lengthy explanation of how the decision fits with u.s. law, not with international opinion. it's fairly misleading for the article's author to imply that "international opinion" would've been used as THE explanation of the decision.the "weight of international opinion" and good ideas should determine court decisions underlies much of the ongoing conflict over President Bush's federal court appointees.
Bookmarks