tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5457587589058615859..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: George Washington Makes Justice Scalia like argument on Slavery (or Vice Versa)Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12749740176579164362022-03-13T16:55:42.443-06:002022-03-13T16:55:42.443-06:00Mr. Rowe I am uncertain of your proposition. Are y...Mr. Rowe I am uncertain of your proposition. Are you saying that minority rights are rights that all men are obligated to honor? R.S.V.P. Thank you.Thomas Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05852474643164772698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75705596050450116662008-11-20T17:27:00.000-07:002008-11-20T17:27:00.000-07:00I suppose I'm in the rare camp that actually admir...I suppose I'm in the rare camp that actually admires BOTH Jaffa and Scalia. I find myself PHILOSOPHICALLY and MORALLY drawn to Jaffa. The Claremont Institute is in my web "favorites," and I'm a huge fan of their writings. <BR/><BR/>But....PRACTICALLY speaking, I am more in line with Scalia. The reason comes down to that question that Tom asks above: "Who decides"?<BR/><BR/>I hope Scalia stays healthy, because (whether you agree with his rulings or not), we NEED his voice on the Court. It's HEALTHY to have an articulate voice on the Supreme Court that advocates strongly and unapologetically for language-focused strict constructionism and the practical supremacy of the democratic process.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9183221861658485372008-11-16T00:47:00.000-07:002008-11-16T00:47:00.000-07:00Brad gets it right. Jon, there's so much cool fou...Brad gets it right. Jon, there's so much cool foundational stuff floating around here between your and Mr. Miettinen's recent posts that the political question of "natural law" seems secondary. Although it is not.<BR/><BR/>I use scare quotes on "natural law" intentionally, as we in the 20th-21st century have abandoned the concept, even according to Justice Scalia.<BR/><BR/>It will come to quite a puzzle to our friends left of center who are used to routinely vilifying him, but Antonin Scalia is not only a moderate, he's an accommodationist and a democrat, small "d".<BR/><BR/>The language [sophistry, IMO] of "rights" has replaced natural law. However, "rights," disconnected from their source and foundation, are mere assertions.<BR/><BR/>This has been the focus of my studies over the past few years, Jon, which I test here. This is what got me started.<BR/><BR/>Now there's a Latin term <I>sui generis</I>, that means "a thing onto itself." We love analogies, we develop our thinking through them. The human mind works that way, comparing abstractions, deriving a central thread or concept that lets us get outside our prejudices about this or that issue to derive a universal principle.<BR/><BR/>However, if "a thing onto itself" exists, and I believe it does, whether it's sex, abortion or slavery, then our attempts to say issue X equals issue Y are useless, and trying to discern the "natural law" is our only recourse.<BR/><BR/>But as even the natural law theorists admit, out interpretation of the natural law isn't absolute; our mileage will vary.<BR/><BR/>It's for this reason that Justice Scalia maintains that a democratic solution is the only reasonable and accommodationist way out.<BR/><BR/>What is right, what is wrong? Politically, the real question is and always will be---and we ask this question all the time of each other don't we?:<BR/><BR/>Who decides?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48159823753225549162008-11-15T17:24:00.000-07:002008-11-15T17:24:00.000-07:00Isn't this the quintessential argument throughout ...Isn't this the quintessential argument throughout the entire course of American history: Majority rule v. protection of minority rights? This argument was -- and still is -- at the heart of the church/state debate. It was central to the conflict surrounding the Civil War, as well as a number of social issues today as you point out. <BR/><BR/>How one is to reconcile these two contradicting philosophies is beyond me. As you point out, majority rule could be used to enslave an entire population, however, protection of minority rights over the will of the majority can potentially eliminate the sovereignty of the people, thus causing severe damage to any democratic state.<BR/><BR/>It's a “damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma,” which is why I believe in judging each case on an individual basis. Adopting one philosophy over the other could be disastrous.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com