Infinite MonkeysOur token liberal Monkey friend Joel Mathis is at this very moment enjoying a blissful vacation road trip (I hope he saved up early for the gas). But even though he's largely out-of-pocket and having fun, I can't help but correct his misconceptions about the conservative view of the Constitution. Joel titled his "see ya soon" post "Blogging Hiatus." But I'm not on a hiatus, so here goes my relatively quick rebuttal.
Joel gave his quick take on the latest significant Supreme Court rulings. And he's a bit off the mark in places. We start here:
I thought the Supreme Court was correct to rule that the death penalty is a disproportionate -- read: "cruel and unusual" -- penalty for child rape. But I can understand how people might disagree. And even I have some problems with Justice Kennedy's reasoning that if the penalty were proportionate, there'd be more states that allowed it. It seems to me that idea strikes against the heart of federalism.
Here is where Joel is the least wrong. But it's a matter of degree. I'm glad to see that Joel has trouble with Justice Kennedy's wavering reasoning. And it's heartening to read a liberal embrace federalism. But, it should be said, Joel is an intellectually honest liberal. The trouble is that capital punishment has been linked to the idea of "cruel and unusual" measures only in modern times. We hung people for stealing cattle a century ago. We may think that is excessive now. But it wasn't in 1905. An adherent to federalism would let states determine for themselves what are especially heinous crimes warranting especially strict punishment.
Joel continues. ...
I also thought the Supreme Court was correct to rule that there is an individual right to bear arms.
Hurray! Joel is not among the liberal mainstream, if E.J. Dionne is any measure. But enough about those Beltway stuffed shirts. On to more Joel stuff!
But I've got to say: I don't really believe my conservative friends when they beat their chests over "judicial tyranny" and cases (like the death penalty ruling) where the court overturns the judgement of the elected branches ... because their love of judicial deference ends when it comes to the gun case (which overturned a D.C. law) ... .Apparently, such deference is owed only when the conservative ox is being gored.
Here's where Joel -- and a lot of liberals -- badly misunderstand the conservative view of the Constitution. Conservatives don't howl when their "ox is being gored." They howl when Supreme Court justices don't know the difference between upholding a constitutional right and inventing one.
Justice Kennedy invented a right to habeas corpus for unlawful combatants -- tossing away all Supreme Court precedent and the court's own instructions to the president and Congress. That took an extreme act of "judicial tyranny" that dismissed the will of the people's elected representatives with no legitimate constitutional justification.
Interpreting and upholding the plain language of the Second Amendment as written in the Constitution is a different and much more clear-cut matter. And it is definitely an ox being gored.
Posted by Dr. Zaius at June 28, 2008 01:19 AM