Wow

I was wondering if I was overstating the growing progressive impatience with the Constitution in the previous post. A few hours later I read this. 

In good conscience, this Georgetown professor of constitutional law ought to find himself another job. 

Comments

[Art Deco]

About 13 years ago, Robert Bork offered that the appellate courts and the law professoriate had succeeded in destroying constitutional law as a valid intellectual subdiscipline. The only surprising thing about this is a deficit of the usual gamesmanship. (I have been thinking in recent years that most of academic life these days is one big con).

[Marianne]

The often-quoted remark made at the beginning of WWI about the lights going out all over Europe just popped into my head.

[Mac]

Very apropos, I fear. I thought, not for the first time in this context, of More's speech in A Man For All Seasons to what's-his-name about giving the devil himself the benefit of law. "And where would you hide then, the laws all being down?"

I read something similar from Bork a few days ago, Art. Doubt I could find it now but it had to do with his surprise that the higher he looked in the judiciary the less regard for the law, and the more for partisanship, he found.

This does at least have the merit of bringing the thing out in the open. I've heard several liberal acquaintances say similar things about the Constitution in private, in the context of the gun control debate.

[Art Deco]

I would not dispute a substantive point: the political architecture needs some serious spackle-work. You could call a constitutional convention to hash that out. Just ignoring the law because it offends the sensibilities of a senile professor at Georgetown is a recipe for a hopeless mess. Did you catch his line about the framers being white property-holders? When in recent years did the faculty develop these fixations (and why does the professor think renting and melanin makes one's views valid and insightful?)

[Mac]

Sure, it does. You don't even need a constitutional convention for that--there's the amendment process, which is there for just the professor's ostensible purpose. But not for his apparent actual purpose, which is that he and those who think like him should be allowed to make law by fiat. But what makes him so sure they would get to make those decisions, or that the results would tally with his personal idea of what is sensible? Really, it's mind-boggling that he would not see the danger to himself in this line of thinking. I can't think of enough bad to say about this. There's a good deal more in this post at Neo-neocon, with links to more. And also a clip from A Man for All Seasons with the exchange I was talking about.

As for the "propertied white males" thing, that seems to be a rhetorical tic which afflicts progressives, especially progressives in academia. Kind of a funny habit for people who think they're teaching the rest of us "critical thinking."

[Louise]

I'm married to a white man, so I'm glad he owns property

[Louise]

The move to Tx is looking almost certain. Will let you know when it's confirmed, Maclin

[Mac]

Well, well. What a huge change that's going to be. I'll start praying for you now.:-) (but not really kidding)

[Louise]

Prayers much appreciated! (Also not kidding)

[Louise]

I've decided I'll be fine as long as we have a pool. We'll live in it. :)

[Marianne]

I think San Antonio is only about a three-hour drive from Houston. Several lovely old Franciscan missions are located there.

[Mac]

What I always tell people from other countries is that the first thing they have to understand about the USA is that it's crazy. I think it's easier to cope if you keep that in mind.

[Janet]

Maybe I should put that in my letter to prospective international seminarians.

AMDG

[Mac]

It might be to their benefit.

[Louise]

That's very helpful, Maclin. :)