Comments on: Annals of Supreme Hypocrisy http://newslanc.com/2010/02/02/annals-of-supreme-hypocrisy/ News, Comment and Culture for Lancaster County Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:52:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://newslanc.com/2010/02/02/annals-of-supreme-hypocrisy/comment-page-1/#comment-28394 Anonymous Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:23:51 +0000 http://newslanc.com/?p=13199#comment-28394 This is like the chicken and egg problem wrapped in a tautology. What kind of laws "abridg[e] the freedom of speech"? That's the question. Anonymous 1 thinks it's obvious what that means. Obviously, he is pleased that SCOTUS has rendered the judgment he considers appropriate. If the Supreme Court had ruled for the opposing party, or adjudicated the very narrow question originally presented to them instead of engaging in "judicial activism," would the outcome still have been the correct one? Is there a single correct interpretation? Can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision? Says who? "Says who?" is the question indeed and it often seems to be the least knowledgeable who are most strident about informing the rest of us what documents like the U.S. Constitution or Hebrew scriptures mean. As if they have some privileged knowledge and aren't merely one additional voice in a cacophony of endless and evolving conversations about what these texts mean. I also wanted to say that this made me think of the bold historian and social activist Howard Zinn, who died last week. This is like the chicken and egg problem wrapped in a tautology. What kind of laws “abridg[e] the freedom of speech”? That’s the question.

Anonymous 1 thinks it’s obvious what that means. Obviously, he is pleased that SCOTUS has rendered the judgment he considers appropriate.

If the Supreme Court had ruled for the opposing party, or adjudicated the very narrow question originally presented to them instead of engaging in “judicial activism,” would the outcome still have been the correct one? Is there a single correct interpretation? Can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision? Says who?

“Says who?” is the question indeed and it often seems to be the least knowledgeable who are most strident about informing the rest of us what documents like the U.S. Constitution or Hebrew scriptures mean. As if they have some privileged knowledge and aren’t merely one additional voice in a cacophony of endless and evolving conversations about what these texts mean.

I also wanted to say that this made me think of the bold historian and social activist Howard Zinn, who died last week.

]]> By: Anonymous http://newslanc.com/2010/02/02/annals-of-supreme-hypocrisy/comment-page-1/#comment-28333 Anonymous Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:15:24 +0000 http://newslanc.com/?p=13199#comment-28333 Gee, it depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Although rarely in my life have I seen such tortured, twisted "logic" as the argument above. Let me repeat part of our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law..." Congress did. The Supreme Court said no. Gee, it depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it? Although rarely in my life have I seen such tortured, twisted “logic” as the argument above. Let me repeat part of our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…” Congress did. The Supreme Court said no.

]]>