Next time a Supreme Court seat comes open, just send the White House a link to this post and you're a shoo-in.
Who's being snide? I am being 100% sincere.
A similar non-analogy: when a ship without enough lifeboats for everyone is not sinking, people don't have inadequate access to lifeboats.
How does the blockquoted bit not apply to hordes of issues the courts deal with all the time? It is the function of the executive to implement certain policies, and if they fail to do so, it is the function of the judge to order them to comply with their duties. This doesn't ordinarily imply any blurring of the distinction between judge and executive. I'm not seeing why the particular details of whether or not the inmate has already had a medical problem are relevant to the argument he's trying to make.
"many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym"
That's the exact bit I quoted to my boyfriend, cursing and cackling equally while likely scaring him to bits.
Um ... I really need to not do more than one thing while commenting. Meant to be:
"while reading the opinion and likely scaring him to bits."
How far is Folsom?
About 12,000 years.
I'm not seeing why the particular details of whether or not the inmate has already had a medical problem are relevant to the argument he's trying to make.
Well, it's relevant because there's supposed to be a systemic problem that, therefore, affects the prison population at large, and the complaint is therefore not made on the basis of individual woes suffered by individual ailing inmates. But, the argument goes, only those who have been denied treatment are actually have actually suffered a violation of their rights. Hence the first of Scalia's supposedly untenable alternatives: "although some or most plaintiffs in the class do not individually have viable Eighth Amendment claims, the class as a whole has collectively suffered an Eighth Amendment violation. That theory is contrary to the bedrock rule that the sole purpose of classwide adjudication is to aggregate claims that are individually viable." The only way for a claim to be advanced on behalf of the prisoners in general is for each individual prisoner to be able to advance a claim. But, manifestly, not all individual prisoners are currently ailing and therefore affected immediately by the subpar state of the medical facilities. So, whether or not one can make it out that even the healthy are in some sense denied treatment given that the state of the facilities is generally inadequate makes a difference to whether the claim of systemic failure can be sustained.
Of course, that's a remarkably stupid way of thinking about what a systemic problem comes to, and is typical of a really infuriating individualism (rooted, perhaps, in a basically british-empiricist approach to things? probably!); nevertheless, I think in this case you can make out a plausible case that, indeed, even the currently healthy have been denied the care that is their due. (Here's the Pettit analogy—yes, I'll cop to it, this time—I was thinking of: suppose that I am subservient to you, but you're a basically nice enough type and let me do what I want. I am nevertheless not free, because, even though I can do as I please at the moment, I'm still at the mercy of your whims; you could change your mind later. (I should probably get some of his articles or something; he gave a couple of talks here which were fantastic but I haven't actually read his stuff.).)
That's, anyway, what Scalia would have to contest; as far as the considerations he actually does advance go, AFAICT you're right.
I mean, suppose someone claimed a violation of his constitutional right to medical care on the grounds that the care he actually did receive when he actually was ailing was so inadequate as hardly to be care at all: wouldn't that involve the court in exactly the same kind of problem?
My favorite part:
There comes before us, now and then, a case whose proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, rather than vice versa.
Just an umpire calling balls and strikes, that's all.
Jesus, Ben, you had a perfectly readable first paragraph, then you had to go and write another one.
Let me also say that Scalia seems to be working with a peculiar theory of when it is that someone is denied medical care, according to which only someone currently ailing can be denied care, but someone who is presently healthy but who would, should he ail, not receive care is, at present, not denied it.
"Objection! Your honor, that sentence should be taken out and shot."
That Scalia is always surprisingly kinky, isn't he?
A similar non-analogy: when a ship without enough lifeboats for everyone is not sinking, people don't have inadequate access to lifeboats.
Here are a handful of parallel non-analogies which might be used to make more clear how a conservative politician or appointee might have arrived at this position:
When Sen. Craig is not having sex with another man in an airport bathroom, Sen. Craig is not a gay or bisexual man.
When Rah and I are not engaged in some hypothetical crisis that a marriage license might fix then we are not being denied the benefits of marriage.
When Scalia is not making a rude hand gesture then he is not the sort of guy who makes rude hand gestures.
Also, the "fine physical specimens" thing is amazing. It reads like the cover blurb of a gay porno only available on VHS.
If you upload it to YouTube, I'll sue you for one hundred million dollars.
A google image search (safe search off) for the exact phrase "fine physical specimens" turns up surprisingly little porn, a picture of Hilary Clinton, and the image of neB's twitter conversation below.
19: Also, Harold Camping, Brüno, and the original Kenny Powers, John Kruk.
Fine physical specimens, all.
Speaking of Harold Camping, it has dawned on him that the apocalypse will now be on 21st October.
He said sorry for not having the dates "worked out as accurately as I could have".Oh, dear.
Speaking of Harold Camping (AP's headline, "Preacher says world will actually end in October", shows they weren't paying close attention before):
Through chatting with a friend over what he acknowledged was a very difficult weekend, it dawned on him that instead of the biblical Rapture in which the faithful would be swept up to the heavens, May 21 had instead been a "spiritual" Judgment Day, which places the entire world under Christ's judgment, he said.
The globe will be completely destroyed in five months, he said, when the apocalypse comes. But because God's judgment and salvation were completed on Saturday, there's no point in continuing to warn people about it, so his network will now just play Christian music and programs until the final end on Oct. 21.
That was more or less his excuse in 1994, wasn't it?
Look, at lot of us need an excuse for what we did in 1994.
Oops. But it is true that he had previously had said that the Apocalypse would be October 21st, this was to have been the Rapture (but he muddied the waters with the earthquake predictions for last Saturday). It's almost like the whole thing is not well-grounded.
26: Good thing the Judgement has already happened or you'd be in trouble for that.
A Facebook friend has called to my attention the following phrasing in a fairly recent Supreme Court opinion: "It would be an unprecedented feat of interpretive necromancy to [accept a particular construction of statutory language." This seems the appropriate place to solicit opinions on said phrasing.
24: Sort of, the September 1994 became some transition 2100 (or 2300) days into the full 8400 day thingie that had started in the late 80's.
God was all ready to unleash the Horsemen, but then little Timmy let his little sister play with his Mutant Ninja Turtle toys, and God was so touched that He decided to spare us.
28: Sadly, my opinion of being smartass like that is wholly dependent on what I think of the attached substance. If I agreed substantively with the judge, I'd think it was charmingly witty, if not, unprofessionally flippant.
This suggests that for consistency's sake I should really disapprove. Who said it?
32.2: Apparently everyone's favorite overcompensating Associate Justice in HOLMES GROUP, INC. v. VORNADO AIR
CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC.
32: Noting who said it would altogether bias any opinion. (And the answer to that question will likely not surprise you.)
But professionalism and wit aside, can "necromancy" be "interpretive"?
Sure -- doing magic to bring a dead person/interpretation back to life is necromancy, isn't it? I did guess who it was, but out of context I kind of like the line.
"...Justice Scalia and Other (Post-) Queers"
Oh, as in summoning an interpretation that is dead! Well, yes, I guess that makes some logical sense and is sort of clever.
Still pompous and overcompensatory, though.
I thought it was kind of appealing, but there's a particular type of pompous right-wing jerk that I find it worrisomely easy to empathize with, and Scalia's one of them.
There was a bombastic asshole of a partner at an old job of mine that creeped me out, because in some very nearby universe I am exactly like him. Made me want to cross myself every time I thought about it and I'm not even Catholic.
37: "Interpretive necromancy" reads to me more like some deprecated non-originalist practice of necromancy. "Necromantic interpretation" isn't quite right either.
14: I find it surprising that that's the sentence you single out.
Scalia proves that it is possible to have contempt for literally every other human on earth. The question is, why does this make some people find him likeable?
42: Well, there's the half of the people he apparently doesn't have contempt for.
"You and me jointly have contempt for those losers over there" is something lots of people find appealing.
It's not exactly the same, but it's similar to Lars Erik-Nelson's gloss on William F. Buckley:
Bill Buckley exists to wrap up peoples' base, greedy, low-life, mean and nasty views into high-faluting language so that they don't have to go around thinking they are just mean, stupid and nasty, but instead have a philosophy like Buckley's.
41: That's the one that I kept trying to reparse. A lot of the others I just skipped.
Scalia proves that it is possible to have contempt for literally every other human on earth. The question is, why does this make some people find him likeable?
Some of us share Scalia's attitude in 90% of cases.
39: In the alternate universe in which I am still a believing christian that impulse is the very definition of Original Sin. It is the seductive tendency to judge others and to take a sort of smug pleasure in their suffering for their failings which constitutes the "knowledge of good and evil" which Adam and Eve acquired and which gave them the ability and desire to arrogate to themselves the prerogatives of God.
Thus endeth the sermon. Please turn to page 42 in the hymnal and join me in singing "Sweet Jesus help me not be an Asshole."
"Interpretive necromancy" reads to me more like some deprecated non-originalist practice of necromancy. "Necromantic interpretation" isn't quite right either.
I read "interpretive necromancy" as analogous to (and possibly a conscious play on) "interpretive charity".
Also, ten to one that in the first draft of the dissent, "fine physical specimens" was rendered as "strapping young bucks". Possibly not in the first written draft, but definitely in the mental draft.
I'm all for judges being clever and mean in opinions, so long as they are also being intellectually honest and, in the case of the higher courts, not morally reprehensible. The problem is that when you come up with something that, you think, is really clever, it can tempt you away from intellectual honesty.
The second problem is that "interpretive necromancy" isn't at all clever.
Scalia proves that it is possible to have contempt for literally every other human on earth. The question is, why does this make some people find him likeable?
Because insult comics are never funny? Because Byn Wylfsyn isn't adorable? IMO, Scalia doesn't suck because of his style, he sucks because he's wrong on the law and intellectually dishonest.
I keep reading "interpretive necromancy" as "interpretive necrophilia", which is a different sort of thing altogether.
interpretive necrophilia
Who's to say she's dead, officer?
I keep wanting "interpretive" to be "interpretative," but based on Google results the former is more common and I'm just weird.
Well, there's the half of the people he apparently doesn't have contempt for.
No, he thinks they're morons too. But he can trust them.
I guess I know some people who love Rahm Emanuel too.
56: What you wrote could be taken to mean he has contempt for every person other than himself or has contempt for every other person like he was counting them off by twos.
Should somebody fix the google-proofing omission up there? Because I can't.
Should somebody bring me ice cream?
interpretive necromancy" sounds to me like a hilarious night of postmodern dance.
I sure wish I was as smart as Ben! My mom says he's exquisite.
Oooh! More Skittles! I'm experiencing the rainbow!