Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
So, strict constructionists are, by definition, stupider than others?
Reading Ty's profferred article, I see two main propositions:
1. He's rabidly anti-abortion; and
2. He's very much a strict constructionist. His arguments in the Kimmel line of cases (which really makes up most of the non-abortion-grounded rejection of him as a judge) simply hold that you cannot find, in the Constitution, support for the right to sue a state for many causes for which people would like to sue a state. I don't see anything outrageous in those arguments. The social effect of finding that right serves the interests and aims of many people who would seem to be rejecting Pryor, not on his legal acumen, but his willingness to stay with strict construction even when creativity in interpretation would serve their aims better. Frankly, Roe should show us how we unite the nation when we "find" new rights.
|
I'm not sure what you read, since I linked to several blog entries relating to different cases in which Pryor has been involved, most of which had nothing to do with abortion, and a speech. There was a case involving governmental immunity from suit, but it involved a municipality, not a state, and Heldman talked about it as an example of Pryor taking positions far from the mainstream. There was no article. And I really don't understand where you get the idea that he's a strict constructionist from. If you read those entries, you'll see that Heldman thinks he's an opportunist, not (jurisprudentially) principled. E.g., an advocate of states' rights, but the only AG to file a pro-Bush brief in the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Whatever else you may think of that case, we can agree that the Supreme Court did not defer to the Florida Supreme Court.
edited to fix grammar
