NEPHEW VS. “MADRASSA VOUCHERS”: I’ll reply to this… later. For the moment I’ll just say that I was using “madrassa” in a wildly loose way, for which I apologize. Read more

YOU HAVE MORE ALLIES THAN YOU THINK. Body and Soul writes that “conservatives” are hideous scumbags who don’t care about human rights except in countries we want to bomb (I’m paraphrasing here, in case you wondered!). Here are some articles, very much off the top of my head. From National Review: Saudis suck Saudis suck Saudis suck Saudis suck International trafficking in women sucks International trafficking in women sucks International trafficking in women sucks International trafficking in women sucks North... Read more

LOOKS LIKE I’M THE ONLY PERSON who thought “X-Men” was better than “X-Men II.” I pretty much didn’t get the point of the sequel except as a set-up to a third movie. Lots of undeveloped characters. Many super, supercool special effects, signifying nothing in particular. [shrug] I paid $6.50, I think I was cheated of about two bucks. Not sorry I saw it, but wish it had been a (much) smarter movie. Anyway, won’t rain on parade with further comment. Read more

THE CONSTITUTION, HIGH AND LOW: So I’m about to criticize some stuff Professor Jack Balkin has been saying about jurisprudence on his blog, Balkinization. Let’s start with a few disclaimers: 1) I haven’t read his published writing on these topics, just his blog. 2) He teaches law for a living. I spout off for a living. 3) Therefore, he undoubtedly has vastly more learning and whatnot in this realm than I do. If he, or anyone else for that matter,... Read more

Before I try to tease out where I think this approach goes seriously wrong, I should note what it gets right: Jurisprudence does, absolutely, require philosophy. It requires a philosophy of law, of citizenship, of interpretation. You can’t just read the text and slap it onto whatever situation wanders into your courtroom; you have to stretch, to come up with ad hoc reunderstandings and reapplications. And Balkin is absolutely right that this is especially true of cases that come before... Read more

So, back to the high and the low. One problem with Balkin’s distinction is that it assumes that political parties are the only players in “low” politics. What about interest groups? Why is ruling in the interests of the GOP horrible but ruling in the interests of the NRA is not? Why is sticking your guy into office by judicial fiat hideous, but sticking your favored, controversial policy into law by judicial fiat A-OK? I can easily see arguments that... Read more

Balkin gestures at another possible kind of constraint when he discusses Lawrence v. Texas, the sodomy-law case. Balkin argues, “In fact, the scope of the constitutional right of privacy is determined by evolving social norms, not by legal logic. It is determined by politics and social movement contestation, even if judges don’t recognize this fact or admit it to themselves. We often think that fundamental rights should reflect basic values that do not change over time. In fact it is... Read more

So, to sum up: If, in response to all this, people say, “If everyone had followed your jurisprudential philosophy, we wouldn’t have awesome social outcomes A through Q,” that’s not very persuasive to me, for two reasons: a) You don’t know that. What would our abortion laws be if Roe had never happened, or had been returned to the states? What would we do if we had to, like, get our social movements ratified by more than five people at... Read more

A READER ASKED for the title of the Christian counseling book I referred to in the big post below on addiction and ritual. It’s Women Helping Women, ed. Elyse Fitzpatrick and Carol Cornish. Can’t vouch for the whole thing, as I’ve only read a couple chapters, but as I said I got a lot out of the bits I read. Read more

SALAM PAX IS BACK. Via InstaPundit. Read more