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