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.)

4 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/

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.

Mark In Irvine said...

Prop 8 is effectively legislation of discrimination against homos. The only argument in favor of such discrimination is purely Biblical: it does not stand up to logic or common sense (as the non-Biblical arguments also do not). I suspect that George Will has at least passing familiarity with the horrors inflicted on the world by religious zealots (and people crediting themselves with religious faith) such as the Catholic Spanish Inquisition and the subsequent Lutheran and Calvinistic inquisitions, yet he will say anything to facilitate the sneaking infestation of religion into law when it is consistent with his self-loathing attitude that forces him to rely on some external "authority" for guidance in life. The California Constitution recognizes the rights and freedoms of individuals in such a way that the individual's choice of the "life partner" is left to the individual and is not dictated or restricted by some external authority or the masses in their simplistic prejudices. What will George Will do for a living when individual freedom is the law of the land, and nobody will listen to his bigoted rantings disguised as articulate discourse? Get an honest job?

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.

Commentators, Subjects and Cases