Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Roper v. Simmons -- Scalia's Dissent
I have come to realize that Scalia is the Ann Coulter of the Supreme Court. Both of these intellectuals make their points with combinations of words that demand your attention like a pipewrench across the bridge of the nose. Perhaps, Pres. Bush should consider nominating Coulter to the Supreme Court.
In a prize fight between the opinions, Scalia's dissent scores all the points.
The majority and O'Connor both take swipes at Scalia's original intent interpretation. Scalia's introduction has the power of a grizzly paw swatting away the majority's anemic alternative interpretation:
"What a mockery today's opinion makes....announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed."
The close of his opening paragraph scores a blow to the head of the majority opinion, a prelude to the pummeling he will deliver in the opinion:
"Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."
Here's a blow to the solar plexus that has the majority opinion gasping for breath:
"By what conceivable standard can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?"
A nice jab to the nose:
"In other words, all the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, if to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends."
Followed by a nice combination:
"[T]he basic premise of the Court's argument--that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world--ought to be rejected out of hand."
"To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, it not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."
Another body blow has the majority staggering:
"[T]his is no way to run a legal system... The result will be to crown arbitrariness with chaos."
Two power punches from the footnotes put the opposition down for the knockout:
"The votes in today's case demonstrate that the offending selected lawyers' moral sentiments are not a predictable basis for law--much less a democratic one.
"Either America's principles are its own, or they follow the world; one cannot have it both ways."
In a prize fight between the opinions, Scalia's dissent scores all the points.
The majority and O'Connor both take swipes at Scalia's original intent interpretation. Scalia's introduction has the power of a grizzly paw swatting away the majority's anemic alternative interpretation:
"What a mockery today's opinion makes....announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed."
The close of his opening paragraph scores a blow to the head of the majority opinion, a prelude to the pummeling he will deliver in the opinion:
"Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."
Here's a blow to the solar plexus that has the majority opinion gasping for breath:
"By what conceivable standard can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?"
A nice jab to the nose:
"In other words, all the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, if to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends."
Followed by a nice combination:
"[T]he basic premise of the Court's argument--that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world--ought to be rejected out of hand."
"To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, it not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."
Another body blow has the majority staggering:
"[T]his is no way to run a legal system... The result will be to crown arbitrariness with chaos."
Two power punches from the footnotes put the opposition down for the knockout:
"The votes in today's case demonstrate that the offending selected lawyers' moral sentiments are not a predictable basis for law--much less a democratic one.
"Either America's principles are its own, or they follow the world; one cannot have it both ways."
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 1:35 PM 
