The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

If Stupidity Was Illegal, Slate Would Be In Trouble

Posted on | September 23, 2010 | 17 Comments

by Smitty

Volokh links to Dahlia Lithwick expressing an opinion of Jane Curtin proportions.

Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional?

Dahlia darling, you’ve just captured succinctly the not-my-problem view that has led to the current crisis.
The Progressive doctrine of judicial restraint, abetted by a snoozing court of public opinion, is directly responsible for the Constitutional weakness of our times.
No, Dahlia, the situation where Congress passes whatever comes out of the printer and tosses it over the hedge to clobber the economy is not a proper state of affairs. The parade of clowns who are five weeks off of getting kicked to the curb have sworn an oath, at which they scoff, to support and defend that Constitution.
It’s a decadent, unsupportable situation in which we find ourselves. Your attention is drawn to Amar’s book, you ignorant . . .


17 Responses to “If Stupidity Was Illegal, Slate Would Be In Trouble”

  1. Joe
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 11:15 am

    Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional?

    Well, yes Dahlia it is.

    So when states restrict something…say ABORTION, and the Constitution is silent on the topic (although it has references to protections for life)–How does the Court make the leap that, hey, we determined through the theroretical egg white penumbras of the Constitution that in fact very few restrictions can be imposed to restrict ABORTION and in fact it is a right to make that choice (even though the Constitution is completely silent on that right and goes even further and expressly states any issues not addressed in the Constitution for the federal government are reserved for the states)?

    It’s a mystery.

    Don’t get me started about this abortion.

  2. Kojocaro
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 11:29 am

    dahlia you ignorant

    yes and you know what else is ignorant andrew cuomo and his hypocrisy about paladino milking the taxpayers out of money

  3. Is Dahlia Lithwick a Closet Conservative? at Haemet
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

    […] Update: Smitty has more here. […]

  4. Thrasymachus
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

    This assumes there is some objective idea of what “constitutional” means. Should liberal legislation be carefully crafted to make sure it is constitutional? No, because it will be, virtually by definition, constitutional. Should a conservative piece of legislation be carefully crafted to make sure it is constitutional? It can be (the Arizona immigration law is an example) but the effort is essentially pointless because if liberals don’t like it, it will be found, by whatever false and tortured process of reasoning required, to be unconstitutional. This false and tortured process is called “constitutional law” and is how our country is ruled.

  5. Paul Zummo
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

    A couple of years back when Congress was debating whether to grant DC voting rights, the Washington Post essentially made the same argument: it’s up to the Courts, not Congress, to decide constitutionality. Well that would have come as a surprise to Messers Madison, Hamilton, Washington and company. Then again, none of them were anywhere nearly as knowledgeable as Ms. Lithwick.

  6. K~Bob
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

    It’s worth reading the comments at Volokh. Ms. Lithwick was guilty of poor writing, and possibly the poor reasoning her words implied, but maybe not as egregiously as it first appears.

    The good news is that her words do spur thinking about who gets the “final say.” People who become members of the bar are often dismissive of things like jury nullification, but that’s another possible “final say” on bad law (even where it contradicts the constitution), and can (though rarely) force a rewrite.

    The annual referenda each November are another “final say,” as would be a Constitutional Convention if it were to be called.

    Further, Marbury v. Madison could be altered by succeeding SCOTUS ruling.

    Finally, if a court were to mandate actions by other branches of government, it has no actual power to enforce those actions, and so must rely on another branch for support.

  7. richard mcenroe
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

    As any street cop will tell you, Felony Stupid is not a chargeable crime, but it can be a capital offense.

    As the Democratic Party is about to find out.

  8. Estragon
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

    Up until recent years, the constitutionality of legislation was a regular part of congressional research and debate because it had been assumed since the founding itself that the Congress had a responsibility to ensure it did not exceed its powers OR neglect its responsibilities.

    Lithwick is Slate’s religion writer, although she is equally ignorant of that area. As with most of her colleagues, they could save bandwidth and readers’ time and trouble by replacing these articles with a simple notice to ****[Insert liberal talking points HERE]****

  9. Smitty Two-fer « Obi's Sister
    September 23rd, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

    […] Dahlia Lithwick’s Jane Curtain moment, No, Dahlia, the situation where Congress passes whatever comes out of the […]

  10. Those dumb, dangerous, ‘fundamentalist’ constitutionalists « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
    September 29th, 2010 @ 6:51 pm

    […] post in particular raised howls of amazement at her constitutional ignorance, and from many sources. It is no stretch to understand what liberals are trying to do. ‘Fundamentalists’ conjures […]