Comments on: The Case Against the Legal Left: An Open Letter to Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt

By: sedonaman

sedonaman — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:18:36 +0000

“...The salient fact of our society at the present day, as many others have noted, is that we are engaged in a culture war. It is a war between our cultural elite, the intelligencia and aspiring intelligencia (what has been called the ‘chattering class’), the dominant force in our universities, and media of communication, on the one hand, and the ordinary American citizen on the other. The average citizen holds views on a wide range of issues of basic social policy ... that are anathema to our cultural elite. The difficulty with our system of representative self-government, as they see it, is that everyone gets to vote, with the result that the views of the unenlightened masses are likely to prevail. The function of constitutional law, in the view of our cultural elite and as it has largely operated in recent decades, is to keep this from happening. The first and most important thing to understand about constitutional law is that it has very little to do with a constitution. It has become essentially a device or ruse for policymaking by judges. Such policymaking is much preferred by our cultural elite to policymaking by the elected representatives of the people because judges, given a free hand in policymaking, can generally be relied on to serve as the mirror, mouthpiece, and enacting arm of liberal academia in general and liberal legal academia in particular. Law professors, overwhelmingly well to the Left of the American public, are to judges as The New York Times drama critic is to a playwright. ... “Decisions extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause celebre in today’s academia. The primary function of judicial opinions explaining these decisions is to deny or conceal this fact.” [Emphasis added] “Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts” by Lino A. Graglia, A Dalton Cross Professor in Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.

By: Bob Stapler

Bob Stapler — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:43:23 +0000

Ever notice how certain websites and e-zines refrain from providing any sort of publicly visible feedback. This precludes readers from having any opportunity for registering disagreement with their views or, at most, leaving it to the editor’s discretion. There’s nothing, of course, saying they must; but it does kind of blow my respect for the (liberal) media as our ‘guardians of speech’. My feeling has always been this is the coward’s way out. If you really believe these things strongly and think you’ve done your homework, then why hide behind a wall of indifference. Surely, enough of CSM’s readership share Roosevelt’s views and are willing to give good account of them they should feel no hesitation to give as good as they get. That they don’t says they lack confidence their views will stand up to scrutiny.

One of the reasons I’ve long patronized the IC website is the editor’s, here, have that kind of confidence; even when attacked for it. Bravo, IC!

By: nick adams

nick adams — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:18:43 +0000

Mr. Roebuck

Your letter reminds us of the lunacy of striving toward nothing but the “X,” as you put it.

The problem, as identified by progressives, is a lack of happiness in oneness. Only total sameness can correct the problem. Anything else is discrimination and a roadblock to the pursuit of happiness, a condition evidenced by the hurt feelings of anyone certified as a “victim” by the left.

Your point is well taken, and ultimately you suggest the obvious: morality exists because there are things that are not moral. When all becomes moral, there can be no morality.

As there is no end to hurt feelings, or feelings of exclusion, the man who wants to marry two women, and the two women who desire the same, cannot be ignored. And from there, what is there (over time) that cannot be successfully argued based on the ideals of equality of happiness?

Your message is something I like to express simply: “When everything goes, everything will go.”

It’s a prediction history confirms.