The greediest blog on the net.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Here. Notice how many times he uses the word "vote." This makes it abundantly clear that the SCt does not interpret the Constituion -- they vote.
The Constitution is apparently "living." I've never seen anyone with this view, not even Posner (considered the top judge at any level by most), justify the use of a document if you are not going to consider what it says. This would be like reading a contract and ignoring the price term because the contract is "living" -- why have a contract in the first place?
He says that no one could be confirmed if they thought that Brown should be overruled or limited. Almost as if he doesn't realize that Brown continued to interpret the Constitution as supporting the theory of separate but equal (but that separate could never be equal in real life, so stop segregating). In addition to clarifying it, limiting Brown was one of the major reasons for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Seriously, I can't believe this guy is considered a top ConLaw professor. Whatever.
He taught the ConLaw section of BarBri and people were amazed that he was able to memorize a lecture he wrote and had probably given 400 times. His timing was fairly impressive (starting and ending on the hour basically to the second 8 times), but I didn't think his lecture itself was anything really special. Just reciting what he had written, memorized, and said before. I thought I had missed something when everyone wanted to worship at his alter afterwards. Maybe what I missed was his ratification of the use of the SCt to make policy decisions.
Alright, I need to do a simulated exam.
PS: I am going to rent my condo out for at least a year, which is why I took down the banner.
Posted by Gel 7:28 PM Post a Comment
Real Friends' Blogs