1.19.2006
Scalia's fair-weather federalism, plus Old People causing accidents
Scalia
I'm a big fan of Justice Scalia; that is, I like Scalia the writer, Scalia the idealist, Scalia the purist. As a judge, however, he is far from the ideal set forth in his book A Matter of Interpretation or his various articles on judging. Scalia employs certain theories and doctrines as he sees fit, and always comes to a decision that would make sense politically for a social and economic conservative (as well as religious conservative). Every now and then he does something vaguely "liberal" when it won't actually hurt the cause of social conservatism and when he wants to grandstand.
So William Saletan at Slate has a nice article on Scalia's fair-weather treatment of fundamental constitutional principles. Basically, Saletan's article is hard to read for the first part of it, but the second part makes a lot of sense and is something I have noticed in the past as well. Scalia is a fair-weather federalist: there is great importance of giving states the freedom to try out legislation in the realm of public safety, criminal law, and so forth. This allows the states to act as public laboratories to evaluate the effectiveness of things like legalizing prostitution (Nevada), assisted suicide for terminally ill patients (Oregon), or medical marijuana (California). Scalia likes to parrot this line a lot when the stakes are abortion -- obviously he doesn't like that we have a national rule for all 51 jurisdictions that precludes many restrictions on abortion. But when it comes to legalized marijuana or assisted suicide? Scalia backpedals and suddenly, the "states as laboratories" thing isn't so important:
I also would like to note that Scalia, who is obviously above politics and concerning only with reasoned elaboration of "what the law is," decided to quote from a Friend of the Court Brief in the assisted suicide case Gonzales v. Oregon that was filed by the Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund. Hmmm, nothing political there. Anyway, read the article, or better yet, read any set of Scalia opinions on abortion and assisted suicide/marijuana and tell me why federalism concerns should be selectively invoked to satisfy political desires on the part of religious conservatives.
Old People in Cars
Everyone "knows" that young drivers are very dangerous in their cars, and insurance rates reflect this, right? But many people don't understand the great danger posed by old people (armed with cars). Yes, the same demographic that is spending the federal budget into the ground with entitlements, decrying the supposed "decline" of public morality, and voting in large numbers to send young people to die in foreign wars. Yep, the same generation that is celebrated for its experience and perseverance during the cold war. Bullshit. You know what I want to point out? Old people cause a ton of car accidents, and the victims are probably younger people, who still have long lives ahead of them and don't need to be cut down by some nearly-blind person who stubbornly refuses to pay property and income taxes for public transit or refuses to hire a driver/use a family member for transportation.
The stats on this page reflect this pretty well for me (look just past midway down the page for the rate of fatal vehicular accident involvement): While young people between 16-24 are the most dangerous, pound-for-pound, the often overlooked class of people above 70 are also deadly. Especially the most dangerous class of all: people over 85 who continue to drive on public roads, the highest pound-for-pound causer of traffic fatalities in the United States.
I'm a big fan of Justice Scalia; that is, I like Scalia the writer, Scalia the idealist, Scalia the purist. As a judge, however, he is far from the ideal set forth in his book A Matter of Interpretation or his various articles on judging. Scalia employs certain theories and doctrines as he sees fit, and always comes to a decision that would make sense politically for a social and economic conservative (as well as religious conservative). Every now and then he does something vaguely "liberal" when it won't actually hurt the cause of social conservatism and when he wants to grandstand.
So William Saletan at Slate has a nice article on Scalia's fair-weather treatment of fundamental constitutional principles. Basically, Saletan's article is hard to read for the first part of it, but the second part makes a lot of sense and is something I have noticed in the past as well. Scalia is a fair-weather federalist: there is great importance of giving states the freedom to try out legislation in the realm of public safety, criminal law, and so forth. This allows the states to act as public laboratories to evaluate the effectiveness of things like legalizing prostitution (Nevada), assisted suicide for terminally ill patients (Oregon), or medical marijuana (California). Scalia likes to parrot this line a lot when the stakes are abortion -- obviously he doesn't like that we have a national rule for all 51 jurisdictions that precludes many restrictions on abortion. But when it comes to legalized marijuana or assisted suicide? Scalia backpedals and suddenly, the "states as laboratories" thing isn't so important:
The fact that many in Oregon believe that the boundaries of 'legitimate medicine' should be extended to include assisted suicide does not change the fact that the overwhelming weight of authority (including the 47 States that condemn physician-assisted suicide) confirms that they have not yet been so extended.
I also would like to note that Scalia, who is obviously above politics and concerning only with reasoned elaboration of "what the law is," decided to quote from a Friend of the Court Brief in the assisted suicide case Gonzales v. Oregon that was filed by the Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund. Hmmm, nothing political there. Anyway, read the article, or better yet, read any set of Scalia opinions on abortion and assisted suicide/marijuana and tell me why federalism concerns should be selectively invoked to satisfy political desires on the part of religious conservatives.
Old People in Cars
Everyone "knows" that young drivers are very dangerous in their cars, and insurance rates reflect this, right? But many people don't understand the great danger posed by old people (armed with cars). Yes, the same demographic that is spending the federal budget into the ground with entitlements, decrying the supposed "decline" of public morality, and voting in large numbers to send young people to die in foreign wars. Yep, the same generation that is celebrated for its experience and perseverance during the cold war. Bullshit. You know what I want to point out? Old people cause a ton of car accidents, and the victims are probably younger people, who still have long lives ahead of them and don't need to be cut down by some nearly-blind person who stubbornly refuses to pay property and income taxes for public transit or refuses to hire a driver/use a family member for transportation.
The stats on this page reflect this pretty well for me (look just past midway down the page for the rate of fatal vehicular accident involvement): While young people between 16-24 are the most dangerous, pound-for-pound, the often overlooked class of people above 70 are also deadly. Especially the most dangerous class of all: people over 85 who continue to drive on public roads, the highest pound-for-pound causer of traffic fatalities in the United States.
# posted by Vanity @ 17:14 
