At Random, 8/13/06

The Rule of Law:

There's a great and shattering irony in Justice Kennedy's words. I'm actually prepared to believe his sincerity. (I wonder if I would be if it had been Antonin Scalia? But then, I can't imagine Scalia giving such a speech.)

This is, if anything, even more ironic:

American Bar Association President Michael Greco discussed some of the same themes as he introduced Kennedy.

"Any threat to liberties and human rights in one country is a threat to the citizens of all nations," Greco said. "The most fundamental responsibility of members of the legal profession is to ensure that the law is used as an instrument to advance the basic principles of justice, fairness and equality."

Sorry, but reading this, I couldn't help thinking of lawyers like Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, and John Ashcroft. They sort of make ambulance chasers look like saints.


Marriage:

Interesting debate going on, hosted by Right Off the Shore. This post has the links. Here is the second question in the debate.

Update: the second question and responses are here.


Sore Loserman:

In spite of what you may have heard from Rove and Company, Joe Lieberman is not a center-left candidate. He is a center-right spoiler and is now endangering, according to some sources, the Democrats' prospects of gaining control of the House.

Joe, I wouldn't vote for you for dogcatcher.


On Andersen et al:

My final comment is simply that in both the Washington and New York same-sex marriage decisions, the arguments are seriously flawed -- as bad as Bowers, which the Supreme Court not only overturned, but repudiated in fairly strong language, and, contrary to what seems to be the thrust of most commentaries, I don't see them as influential. I think they will be cited by courts who are inclined to agree with them anyway, but I think it's the dissents that are going to be law in short order.

The danger in both these decisions, as I've mentioned previously, is that they reveal an increasing unwillingness on the part of the courts to do their job. I can't ascribe this entirely to right-wing attacks on our independent judiciary, which is a concept that is anathema to the Christianists. However, I think that the corollary that shares part of the blame is that Reagan and Bush between them have packed the federal courts with conservative judges who are too prone to bow to the executive and legislative branches. In these cases, both decisions display undue deference to legislatures (although the Washington decision does quite remarkably all but demand the legislature change the law), and both are unwilling to consider the constitutional issues on quite flimsy reasoning. It's as though they did a lot of reasearch and intellectual backflilps to avoid doing their jobs.


Tradition:

Some thoughts by Jim Johnson of Straight Not Narrow on tradition. Worth reading and pondering. Sraight Not Narrow is a Christian site that is overtly critical of fundamentalists who use their religion as a club. They take on Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and other "Christian" hate groups. Visit them.