Jon Rowe has a post that links to a fascinating exchange between Harry Jaffa, arguing for natural rights theory as the prism through which one must view Constitutional originalism, and Robert Bork and Lino Graglia, arguing the opposite. There is a big split among conservative legal theorists that the general public, including most people who identify themselves as conservatives, is generally unaware of. It can be viewed in various ways, such as libertarian-minded conservatives vs authoritarian-minded conservatives, but the lynchpin of the argument is the question of the role of the Declaration of Independence and the natural-rights theory implicit in it and whether that should play any role in Constitutional interpretation. Bork emphatically rejects the notion of natural rights, while Jaffa, as well as Clarence Thomas, endorse this notion.
One line from Graglia in this exchange caught my eye. Referring to Jaffa, he writes, "He has written that Bork "no doubt in his own mind . . . has taken on something of the status of a martyred saint of conservatism," a statement for which he has not the slightest basis." If not in his own mind, Bork has at least taken on the status of martyred saint in the minds of a large portion of conservatives, and I think quite absurdly so. I am always amazed at the number of people I talk to who are still, nearly 20 years later, furious that Bork was rejected for the court, who rail against the "unfair campaign of villification" that doomed his nomination, but who have never bothered to read his work or consider its merits. They are almost always stunned to find out just how radical and dangerous his views actually are. A pretty good introduction can be found in this article by Walter Olson in Reason.
- Log in to post comments
"We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said. "Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part."
Does anyone besides me live close to the Thomas More Law Center? I'm a few miles from there, and I could swear I just heard Richard Thompson scream at a staff member to get him some clean underwear.
Sorry, I posted that to the wrong thread...d'oh!
When I skimmed Slouching Towards Gommorah, or whatever it's called, I was quite astonished by the moral relativism in it. It was quite unexpected, at least for me. It was the first hint for me that the right was becoming relativistic, in at least certain ways, albeit contradictorily.
I can't understand how anyone could support equating "justice" with "the law"--at least, anyone who has read a little philosophy. Has the man read Letter from a Birmingham Jail? Does he understand his view commits him to the idea that slavery was just circa 1850? Why ever bother to change the law if it is automatically just? From which point of view do we critique the law?
I'm glad people are discussing it. It was something I couldn't believe people didn't know, once I had discovered it, but I guess people don't always read and think through the actual writings of the people they have opinions on.
Bork's writings since he was rejected for the Supreme Court show that those who rejected him were correct in doing so. The Tempting Of America was bad enough (about half of that book was a defense of his legal positions that his opponents had used to reject him), but Slouching Towards Gomorrah was absolutely inane. Quite frankly, Dan Savage's response to the latter, Skipping Towards Gomorrah was much better. http://www.skippingtowardsgomorrah.com/