Search the Lounge


« The Defense of Rasmea Odeh -- Part Four: Supporters | Main | Exclusive Submission at Penn State Law Review Until May 12 »

May 04, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


So, when we wade thru and eliminate all the academic jargon, name calling, partisan chest thumping and outright bias, here's what all this boils down to:

Alito wrongly refuses to accept "science" because he questions the status of carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act;

Alito wrongly questions racial classifications;

Alito wrongly associates Citizens United with the First Amendment;

Alito wrongly decried (by implication) Mark Tushet's provocative language; and

Alito in general wrongly expresses Alito's pov.

Ok, understood. You're right, he's wrong. It's obvious, right?


Yes, it's obvious.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

All we ask is that our courts be fair and impartial, and certainly untainted by corruption. They must robustly and seriously assert their Article III authority as a structural part of a system of checks and balances, especially in today's climate. As long Justice Alito adheres to that, I could care less about his "political" opinions.


I don't see how your conclusion "a conservative living constitutionalist... is already on the court" follows from your facts. Alito expressing his personal political opinions in a speech is not the same thing as deciding cases based purely on those political opinions. Do you have some evidence that justices expressing personal opinions correlates to a "living constitutionalist" position. Were their omitted quotes where Alito promises to bend his rulings to his politics? You're logic seems to be "here are facts showing Alito is conservative... therefore he is not an originalist." Just don't see how you get to your conclusion. Interesting speech though.



Because the post above doesn't explain anything, but rather presupposes everyone agrees that the views Alito expressed are contemporary nonsense, you are understandably wanting to hear what the post is actually trying to say. Nothing, is the answer. Nothing at all. Nothing supports the wild conclusion that Alito is a "a conservative living constitutionalist..."

Take the points above one by one and it is, as stated above, at least to this reader, obvious that Alito is not contemporizing in any way.

Only an ideologue could believe that Americans cannot speak about politics, using whomever's money they choose. The fact that the radical left actually believes that the Congress restricting the expressing of political speech is consistent with the First Amendment is nearly as insane as its latest obsession with the new McCarthyite effort to expose Russian infiltration of our government and our minds. In both instances, the radical left in this country believes that too much speech is undermining democracy. Insane.

Even more ludicrous that it is contemporizing to hold that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.

The most telling part of the post above is the implicit contention that Alito doesn't know how to express Alito's views in a consistent, rigorous, sensible manner. The author might want to turn that focus around.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

I would bet dollars to donuts that Alito/Gorsch/Scalia/Roberts would allow Stephen Colbert to continue unabated in his justified (in my opinion) scurrilous rants against T-Rump. Absent any real physical threats, why should the FCC regulate. Hand off...let the market decide.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad