<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supremely Stupid &#8211; The American Right&#8217;s attack on liberal judges</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.entangledalliances.com/2009/06/supremely-stupid-the-american-rights-attack-on-liberal-judges/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.entangledalliances.com/2009/06/supremely-stupid-the-american-rights-attack-on-liberal-judges/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:54:13 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Brough</title>
		<link>http://www.entangledalliances.com/2009/06/supremely-stupid-the-american-rights-attack-on-liberal-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-3032</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Brough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entangledalliances.com/?p=1487#comment-3032</guid>
		<description>Great post, Ed.

I have to say though, originalism does seem to be a  pretty dishonest doctrine. As I pointed out to Justice Scalia (!), originalism would not have ruled in favour of Brown in &lt;i&gt;Brown v Board&lt;/i&gt;. (He responded by claiming that I was bringing out the &#039;red rag&#039; of the living constitution movement, but that he probably - PROBABLY! - would have sided with the majority, but only because of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Which is bullshit, because the 14th said nothing about segregation, and Plessy v Ferguson basically affirmed the view of that era that segregation was acceptable. You can only get the (correct) outcome that was the case in Brown v Board if you read these articles in the context of present-day standards of decency.) I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anything disingenuous (or bad) about arguing that society tends towards decency, and that courts should reflect this.

As an aside: I think it&#039;s interesting how liberals often do their best to deny how liberal they (or someone they support) are, rather than saying &quot;yes, they&#039;re liberal, and that&#039;s a good thing&quot;. Maybe we all just need to be a bit more assertive?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Ed.</p>
<p>I have to say though, originalism does seem to be a  pretty dishonest doctrine. As I pointed out to Justice Scalia (!), originalism would not have ruled in favour of Brown in <i>Brown v Board</i>. (He responded by claiming that I was bringing out the &#8216;red rag&#8217; of the living constitution movement, but that he probably &#8211; PROBABLY! &#8211; would have sided with the majority, but only because of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Which is bullshit, because the 14th said nothing about segregation, and Plessy v Ferguson basically affirmed the view of that era that segregation was acceptable. You can only get the (correct) outcome that was the case in Brown v Board if you read these articles in the context of present-day standards of decency.) I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anything disingenuous (or bad) about arguing that society tends towards decency, and that courts should reflect this.</p>
<p>As an aside: I think it&#8217;s interesting how liberals often do their best to deny how liberal they (or someone they support) are, rather than saying &#8220;yes, they&#8217;re liberal, and that&#8217;s a good thing&#8221;. Maybe we all just need to be a bit more assertive?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
