Friday, January 16, 2009

Washington Post Columnist George Will: Of Judges, By Judges, For Judges

01/15/09 Washington Post: Borrowing, without attribution, from Kenneth Starr, columnist George Will claims that "[California Attorney General Brown's audacious argument is a viscous soup of natural-law and natural-rights philosophizing, utterly untethered from case law. It is designed to effect a constitutional revolution by establishing an unchallengeable judicial hegemony." (Will mentions Starr's brief later in his column.)
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

3 comments:

George In Denver said...

Far be it from me to question the conclusions of the august George Will. But, well, the polemic is diverse on this issue, and my thoughts--perhaps equally as gogent as Will's--appear at: http://georgeindenver.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/same-sex-marriage-a-review-some-thoughts/

January 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Mark In Irvine said...

Great Gawd-a-mighty! George Will is shooting off his mouth again, oversimplifying complex things in order to stir up ignorant reaction from the credulous. He IGNORES what the California Supreme Court said in May 2008 about what the California Constitution says about individual rights, and he ignores the distinction, which is at issue in the current Prop 8 litigation before the California Supreme Court, between a "modification" and an "amendment" of the Constitution by voter initiative. He also, erroneously, suggests that the Attorney General's position in that litigation is Jerry Brown's personal opinion, rather than acknowledging that it may be a legal argument that the State's attorney has to take based on the law. George Will seems never to be content unless he can oversimplify debate into black and white camps. It is too bad that Will uses his erudition and eloquence to mislead the credulous into thoughtless partisan reaction, rather than using his gifts to educate and clarify. Had Mr. Will the benefit of a Jesuit education, one surmises that he would use his talents for good, rather than evil.

January 22, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Mark In Irvine said...

The United States Supreme Court has ruled (over 5 years ago) that prosecution of consenting adults for their private sexual conduct violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Lawrence V. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558. Discrimination among people based on religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or on sexual interests, is no longer legal.

I haven't made it through all the Prop 8 briefs, but I'm hoping that the due process argument is effectively presented.

January 22, 2009 at 1:04 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Commentators, Subjects and Cases