Slate Magazine: By Dahlia Lithwick
I'm not surprised the dissenters are pissed. What Roberts holds out as a dispassionate, mechanistic, and apolitical legal project is in fact an ideological and immoderate attack on a principle they believed to be inviolate. And I imagine it's insulting after a while for the dissenting justices to be cast in the role of irrational hysterics. Someone pointed me today to the most amazing portion of Breyer's dissent, in which he says the problem with the plurality's logic 'lies in its overly theoretical approach to case law, an approach that emphasizes rigid distinctions between holdings and dicta in a way that serves to mask the radical nature of today's decision. Law is not an exercise in mathematical logic.'
There is only one way in which the chief justice's famous comparison of justices to umpires still holds after today's plurality opinion: It turns out justices and umpires both wear masks.
No comments:
Post a Comment