Pem on Partisanship: Right, wrong or more necessary than ever?
By Pem Schaeffer
Several years ago, I heard Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia being interviewed about so-called “moderate” judges.
“What is a moderate interpretation of the text?” Scalia said. “Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, ‘Draw me a moderate contract?’ The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one.”
To make this concept more personal, how you would feel about “moderate” wedding vows? This might mean that while your spouse could be unfaithful in special situations, you must be faithful no matter what. This would make the interpretation of your marriage vow, as Scalia says, halfway between what it really means and what your spouse would like it to mean. How does that sound?
Or how about an oath of office you take when being sworn in as a public official, in which you promise to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution? A moderate position would be that you must adhere to your vow, but your colleague can ignore it when she chooses, as long as it’s in pursuit of a “greater good.” Or vice versa.
I remembered Scalia’s words in the midst of the current hand wringing over “hyper-partisanship” and the related romanticizing of so-called “independents.” The latter come in at least two versions.There is far more to read on this article so please click on the following link and enjoy. Great Job Mr. Shaeffer
http://www.themainewire.com/2012/09/pem-partisanship-right-wrong-ever/
No comments:
Post a Comment