They ask about foreign law...I still would like to read an answer to questions posed here, or to the objections Scalia raised at AU (transcript here). Whether it is intended to be authoritative or pursuasive is a secondary question to what I regard as the overarching question, which is, under what possible paradigm is foreign precedent relevant. Justice Breyer's blithe comment that "we might just learn something" fails dismally in the mustard cutting stakes for want of an explanation as to what is supposed to be learned, and what relevance it might have to American jurisprudence.
By the way, I was amused that the host continually called Ginsburg a Marxist. A couple of weeks ago, Robert Bork was on Washington Journal, and a caller made much the same accusation: that the caller had studied Ginsburg's writings and found that they were identical to those of Lenin. Bork was visibly trying to suppress incredulous laughter as he answered that, having sat on the DC circuit with then-Judge Ginsburg for several years, no, she isn't a leninist or a marxist, she's just a liberal.
Simon: I quickly saw that I was in a clamorous audio environment where I had to just let a lot of things be there unanswered by me. I selected the things to respond to and chose a few points to make without trying to challenge the overall feel of the show that they controlled and built their audience around.
"[C]lamorous" seems a fairly polite way of putting it. I can think of a few other adjectives to describe the tenor of your esteemed hosts. ;) This is actually why I don't often listen to conservative talk radio; I prefer my political spin low-key and dulcet, which is why I listen to NPR. Surprise - some Republicans do listen to NPR!
Mainly, my comment was just plugging my previous question, though. ;)
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
3 comments:
They ask about foreign law...I still would like to read an answer to questions posed here, or to the objections Scalia raised at AU (transcript here). Whether it is intended to be authoritative or pursuasive is a secondary question to what I regard as the overarching question, which is, under what possible paradigm is foreign precedent relevant. Justice Breyer's blithe comment that "we might just learn something" fails dismally in the mustard cutting stakes for want of an explanation as to what is supposed to be learned, and what relevance it might have to American jurisprudence.
By the way, I was amused that the host continually called Ginsburg a Marxist. A couple of weeks ago, Robert Bork was on Washington Journal, and a caller made much the same accusation: that the caller had studied Ginsburg's writings and found that they were identical to those of Lenin. Bork was visibly trying to suppress incredulous laughter as he answered that, having sat on the DC circuit with then-Judge Ginsburg for several years, no, she isn't a leninist or a marxist, she's just a liberal.
Simon: I quickly saw that I was in a clamorous audio environment where I had to just let a lot of things be there unanswered by me. I selected the things to respond to and chose a few points to make without trying to challenge the overall feel of the show that they controlled and built their audience around.
"[C]lamorous" seems a fairly polite way of putting it. I can think of a few other adjectives to describe the tenor of your esteemed hosts. ;) This is actually why I don't often listen to conservative talk radio; I prefer my political spin low-key and dulcet, which is why I listen to NPR. Surprise - some Republicans do listen to NPR!
Mainly, my comment was just plugging my previous question, though. ;)
Post a Comment