Wednesday, February 01, 2006
This just in...
Father Sarducci asked me to pass this along. (And, yes, I am OK with the fact that I am apparently the only one who finds this funny.)
Three opinions dissenting from the Supreme Court's rehearing order in Bush v. Gore have just arrived. Each is, in its way, characteristic of its author. (Justice Souter did not write a separate dissenting opinion, but joined the dissenting opinions of his three colleagues.)
Stevens, J. "Back in my day, we didn't stand for Popery. You whippersnappers may be all high-falutin' with your Whore of Babylon and your Church of Rome. But things were better when I was born, about 15 seconds after the Big Bang. Cf. Granholm v. Heald, No. 03-1113 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."
Ginsburg, J. "I dissent. This is absurd."
Breyer, J. "The central legal issue that disposes of this case is me. Or, my precisely, my own ability to gather the contending sides on any issue around a table and let them talk until I win. I am firmly committed to the principle that when everyone is subjected to endless bouts of inane banter, I have -- in a sense -- already won. I am firmly opposed to the idea that anyone or anything might be worth fighting or even dying for. Rather, I stand for niceness and civility. Why can't we just get along?
That's why I like to go places and 'debate' Justice Scalia. I can pay endless compliments to my fellow Justices, and point out all the places in which we are in agreement. When everyone's eyes glaze over, I have achieved my goal. Conflict is avoided. No one has to decide who is right and who is wrong. Rightness and wrongness do not decide the issue. Mid-20th century mores do. And that means I win.
And so I must admit that there are a lot of good arguments in favor of the conclusion that the Pope won the 2000 election. The fact that he did not run, and to date has refused to be inaugurated, should not blind us to the merits of the majority's position. I, in fact, admire the mastery with which the majority works around the constitutional text in order to declare that the presidency be awarded to someone who has never yet been an American citizen and, in any event, was not born here (at the time at which he was born at).
On a different day, in a different Term, I might be able to join their opinion. But today I cannot. And I do not plan on offering any basis for my decision. "
Three opinions dissenting from the Supreme Court's rehearing order in Bush v. Gore have just arrived. Each is, in its way, characteristic of its author. (Justice Souter did not write a separate dissenting opinion, but joined the dissenting opinions of his three colleagues.)
Stevens, J. "Back in my day, we didn't stand for Popery. You whippersnappers may be all high-falutin' with your Whore of Babylon and your Church of Rome. But things were better when I was born, about 15 seconds after the Big Bang. Cf. Granholm v. Heald, No. 03-1113 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."
Ginsburg, J. "I dissent. This is absurd."
Breyer, J. "The central legal issue that disposes of this case is me. Or, my precisely, my own ability to gather the contending sides on any issue around a table and let them talk until I win. I am firmly committed to the principle that when everyone is subjected to endless bouts of inane banter, I have -- in a sense -- already won. I am firmly opposed to the idea that anyone or anything might be worth fighting or even dying for. Rather, I stand for niceness and civility. Why can't we just get along?
That's why I like to go places and 'debate' Justice Scalia. I can pay endless compliments to my fellow Justices, and point out all the places in which we are in agreement. When everyone's eyes glaze over, I have achieved my goal. Conflict is avoided. No one has to decide who is right and who is wrong. Rightness and wrongness do not decide the issue. Mid-20th century mores do. And that means I win.
And so I must admit that there are a lot of good arguments in favor of the conclusion that the Pope won the 2000 election. The fact that he did not run, and to date has refused to be inaugurated, should not blind us to the merits of the majority's position. I, in fact, admire the mastery with which the majority works around the constitutional text in order to declare that the presidency be awarded to someone who has never yet been an American citizen and, in any event, was not born here (at the time at which he was born at).
On a different day, in a different Term, I might be able to join their opinion. But today I cannot. And I do not plan on offering any basis for my decision. "
# posted by Anonymous : 9:29 PM
