- Upholding the Constitution
- Lawyer Up!
- Le Corbusier with solar panels
- Did Bush lie?
- You just support SSM because you’re an idiot
I’ve made the point, several times (most recently here), that every elected official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and none takes an oath to uphold whatever may be popped into the minds of 5/9 of the Supreme Court the day before. Carson Holloway makes the point at some length at Public Discourse, beginning with an ill-conceived remark by Mike Huckabee and a very wrongheaded rebuttal by someone associated with the Federalist Society. A closing paragraph:
Judicial supremacy is dangerous to the cause of self-government. By giving the judiciary the “final say” on the meaning of the Constitution, judicial supremacy effectively empowers the Supreme Court to govern the country when it wishes to, displacing the rule of the people with the rule of an unelected body that is not accountable to the people. Lincoln emphasized this point in his First Inaugural address as president. After again conceding the right of the Court to determine the outcome of the particular cases it heard, he famously added that “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
(For what it’s worth, this was written before Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered some insurrection/civil_disobience/caution to his state’s probate “judges” about jumping on the wagon to issue SSM licenses. It is not meant to agree or disagree with Judge Moore, as I know too little of Alabama’s legal posture at the moment.)
History teaches that companies threatened by competition will hire as many lawyers as necessary to get regulators to protect them.
(Gordon Crovitz, opposing submitting the Internet to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 like a public utility – a topic on which I’ve reached no fixed views.)
Le Corbusier was to architecture what Pol Pot was to social reform.
China’s fourth largest city, Tianjin, has a sort of suburb, Tianjin Eco-City, that aspires to be “A thriving city which socially harmonious, environmentally-friendly and resource efficient—a model of sustainable development.” In reality,
It’s Le Corbusier with solar panels. That sort of city, built from scratch and at such a scale to crush the human life out of a city, designed around the car at highway speeds and the misguided belief that mere open space (inevitably converted into parking sooner or later) was better than any place could be, comprises the heart of decades of urban failure in the West.
For Le Corbusier and his followers, the goal was not to work within a living tradition or build upon what had come before, but to completely obliterate the past. In a city or neighborhood he designed, there would be nothing left to remind anyone of what had gone before.
So says Matthew Robare in a fresh article at the American Conservative’s New Urbs page.
It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.
(Laurence H. Silberman) I’d have to agree with this characterization, from a very well-informed source. That doesn’t make me a supporter of the Iraq war or of Dubya, whose conduct and later rationalizations for war still appall me, but I don’t think I’ve ever believed that he lied us into the war.
Exhibit E: You’re just against gay marriage because you’re a Christian!
This super original accusation has been laid to rest here, written when asktheBigot was just a twinkle in this blogger’s eye. The summary: any worldview worth its salt is going to support reality. And the reality is that life-long man-woman marriage is undoubtedly the best family structure for kids. Period. The Bible speaks clearly of sexual complementarity, fidelity, and the needs of children and it drives me to love God more. Mind however that this here Christian never uses scripture to argue for public policy as scripture carries no authority with the public. For that reason, Christians must make their case using only social science data and natural law. Easy to do. In fact, everyone should try it.
(asktheBigot, responding to some of the criticism she got when her Public Discourse piece got her a bunch of limelight)
I love this woman.
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)