Time: Fri Feb 14 19:08:24 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00203;
Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:09:48 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:06:22 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Clients,
A rather trenchant analysis of a recent
publication by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Enjoy!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>To: John Curtis
>>From: pmitch@primenet.com
>>Subject: Antonin Scalia
>>
>>May I have your permission to broadcast
>>this to clients of the Supreme Law School?
>>
>>Your analysis is trenchant.
>>
>
>Sure, you can distribute it with one proviso: please strip the header
>off so my email address is not on it. You can leave my name on, or
>off if you want.
>
>Thanks for the compliment. This piece really did set me back. I'm
>used to convoluted lawyer-speak, but this was defending without
>defending.
>
>ciao,
>
>jcurtis
>
>At 03:05 PM 2/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>Hmmm. Just finished an article by Antonin Scalia (yes, the
>>Supreme Court Justice) in the 2-10 copy of the National Review.
>>
>>Title is : "Vigilante Justices"
>>
>>The article is about the dying Constitution and the "evolving"
>>Constitution as the source of its demise.
>>
>>Scalia comes down strongly on the side of strict "original
>>intent", with minimal interpretation. However, some of his
>>writing borders on the bizarrre and makes you wonder, what, if any,
>>principles he is going to follow.
>>
>>
>>"...the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving
>>Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most
>>obvious refutation is the modern Court's limitation of the
>>constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision
>>prohibiting inpairment of the obligation of contracts, for example,
>>has been gutted. I am sure that We the People agree with that
>>development; we value property rights less than did the Founders.
>>So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders
>>(who thought the right of self-defense to be absolutely fundamental),
>>and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is
>>held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard.
>>But this just shows that the Founders were right when they
>>feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might
>>wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and
>>so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may
>>*like* the abridgment of property rights and *like* the elimination
>>of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not
>>*reductions* of rights." [ * * denotes italics in orig.]
>>
>>
>>Phew! This guy is writing as a self-described conservative and
>>defender of "original intent". But he appears to just be gibbering
>>along, jumping to conclusions that "We the People" are happy about
>>property rights abridgement and will cheerfully abandon the 2nd
>>amendment. Is this guy a shill, a setter-up of false arguments
>>for more liberal judges on the court? Or is he so out-of-whack with
>>any liberty loving opinion that he embraces the positions of his
>>oponents?
>>
>>I guess I just come down to the basic, common sense proposition that
>>the Supreme Court is a bunch of politically appointed lawyers and
>>expect little to nothing from them.
>>
>>Very disappointing article. When the gun nuts (that Shotgun News
>>article) makes more sense than a "friendly" Supreme Court justice,
>>then something strange is happening.
>>
>>jcurtis
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail