Scalia v LaRouche Kid
Last night's episode of America and the Courts on C-SPAN featured the widely covered Justice Scalia speech about foreign law. The speech was widely covered because of the stupidity of some of the questioners, especially one Lyndon LaRouche disciple who ended up being thrown out. If you haven't had an experience with a LaRouche follower, you're missing out on one of life's truly peculiar experiences.
After watching the Q&A session, I can see why the justices tend to stay away from public events like this. Over half of the questions were not about the topic (the use of foreign law), and a sizable percentage of those were loaded political shots. It also seemed like many of the people who tried asking on topic questions hadn't been paying attention. One of the questioners totally got Justice Scalia's view of Natural Law wrong. Scalia basically said that he believes in a Natural Law, he thinks his view of it is correct, but he doesn't think he should impose that Natural Law view on the entire country. This is the view that I personally have on a number of issues, but a lot of people don't seem to get it. I was also disappointed by the lack of Harvey Birdman questions. There were a few decent questions, including one from Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog.
It seems like the justices are very torn about making these appearances. Scalia has been trying to make more of an effort to go to events like this. Breyer gets around pretty well, recently speaking at the U of Chicago law school and not-so-recently appearing on Larry King Live to push his new book. I understand why they want to attend these events. It helps educate the public about legal issues and what the Court does. I also understand why they don't want to attend these events. Anything with an open Q&A session quickly turns into a circus. It should be interesting to see if the justices, especially the new ones, try to get out in the public eye more often. It's definitely a practice that has its pros and cons.
After watching the Q&A session, I can see why the justices tend to stay away from public events like this. Over half of the questions were not about the topic (the use of foreign law), and a sizable percentage of those were loaded political shots. It also seemed like many of the people who tried asking on topic questions hadn't been paying attention. One of the questioners totally got Justice Scalia's view of Natural Law wrong. Scalia basically said that he believes in a Natural Law, he thinks his view of it is correct, but he doesn't think he should impose that Natural Law view on the entire country. This is the view that I personally have on a number of issues, but a lot of people don't seem to get it. I was also disappointed by the lack of Harvey Birdman questions. There were a few decent questions, including one from Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog.
It seems like the justices are very torn about making these appearances. Scalia has been trying to make more of an effort to go to events like this. Breyer gets around pretty well, recently speaking at the U of Chicago law school and not-so-recently appearing on Larry King Live to push his new book. I understand why they want to attend these events. It helps educate the public about legal issues and what the Court does. I also understand why they don't want to attend these events. Anything with an open Q&A session quickly turns into a circus. It should be interesting to see if the justices, especially the new ones, try to get out in the public eye more often. It's definitely a practice that has its pros and cons.
Listening to a LaRouche person talk is interesting. You hear a bunch of words and names that you recognize, but they are never arranged to make a coherent thought. It's like a 5 year old took a bunch of poli sci and philosophy books, cut a bunch of words and phrases out, then pasted them in no particular order onto a piece of paper.
Posted by
Steve |
4:22 PM