Erratum

“still slightly outlive men.”

Therefore the Bridget Jones eaten-by-alsatians scenario holds as true for your trad housewife married for 50 years as it does for your hairy, boiler suited, baby eating feminist™ .

women (still) slightly outlive women

Is there some hidden esoterica? Or do I have to read the article?

I also clicked on another post called “The silent apartment”. This is another dreadful warning to teh Feminists. Because you are so awful, the silent apartment of singlehood is waiting for you. This ignores the simple demographic fact that women (still) slightly outlive women and (still) tend to settle down with older men, so that silent apartment is waiting for you if you choose the conservative or “traditional” route, equally. People who fail to develop their own inner life and generate their own household noise (music and meows?! or woofs, whinnies or squeaks?)had better watch out, whatever their proclivities.

Youre obviously learning Law, and enthusiastic about it, and the new ways of thinking youre learning so well chalk your comments on Scalia up to youthful enthusiasm and move on, shall we?

I know that I am still learning (and hope to forever), and I am pretty sure that I am still enthusiastic about it, and I would like to think that I am still learning new ways of thinking, so I guess I’ll take that at face value.

I’ll resist the temptation to point out that, whilst your point about Scalia sounds reasonable to me – I think he does often try and come across as what is, from the perspective of someone who disagrees with him, a nitpicking arse – it gives weight my point about media and messages. On second thoughts, since you’ve called me pertinacious at least twice in a few hours, not pointing that would surely be a disappointment to you!

Don’t pay it too much attention Patrick. First thing in the morning when I sit down in front of the PC to put together my bits of ML, having forgotten to take me SSRIs beforehand, I’m apt to be a bit tetchy. You’re obviously learning Law, and enthusiastic about it, and the new ways of thinking you’re learning so we’ll chalk your comments on Scalia up to youthful enthusiasm and move on, shall we?

As to Scalia’s remarks on torture, plenty of commenters at Hillzoy’s noted that he could have gone on to discuss the various other constitutional amendments that might imply a right to “humane interrogation” but instead chose to make a meal of the fact that the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” didn’t cover torture. You’d expect a judge of the US Supreme Court to do the former, rather than the latter in an interview with the Meeja wouldn’t you? Well, I would, on the assumption that the judge wanted to portray himself, in public, as a learned and thoughtful jurist rather than a nitpicking arse.

Oh hang on – maybe Scalia thought he was coming across as a learned and thoughtful jurist and got it wildly wrong.

#11: Seriously? The point is that this has nothing to do with Scalia, which is why you and Hilzoy have made the mistake you have.

1 Maybe the Constitution forbids torture full stop – arguably, it would be a reasonable implication in the concept of a democratic polity. But since most of its was drafted by slaveowners, I don’t necessarily think there is any reason to imply rules against torture.

2 ‘Strict constructionism’ is a fundamental part of our legal tradition. It didn’t start with Scalia, by any stretch. Which is why the interpretation you and Hilzoy got so worked up with is settled law in the US.

As it happens, if there is such a rule, it isn’t in the eighth amendment. What Scalia was saying was just settled law, no more. You are all getting confusing the message with the medium!

Finally, if it matters, I doubt your hypothetical applies. I would guess, first, without having looked it up, that ‘cruel and unusual’, if not ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ entirely, is a hendiadys. It would have been used because it had existing currency. Hey, according to Wikipedia, it did! (albeit may not be a hendiadys, judging by that commentary) Secondly, the eighth amendment applies, I believe, to the States, by force of the fourteenth.

Gummo, this isn’t about ideology. Scalia is not some monster nor is ’strict constructionism’ some freaky weird doctrine that he invented. Hilzoy and you have both reacted ideologically, Hilzoy had the sense to admit the error and move on, you want to claim a moral victory based on your personal dislike of the messenger and his style as well as yet further misapprehensions of US law??

I’m intrigued by Mark’s omission of this section of The Economist’s report of Albert Brooks’s research from his selection of quotations:

So much for right versus left. Mr Brooks also finds that extremists of both sides are happier than moderates. Some 35% of those who call themselves extremely liberal say they are very happy, against only 22% of ordinary liberals. For conservatives, the gap is smaller: 48% to 43%. Extremists are happy, Mr Brooks reckons, because they are certain they are right. Alas, this often leads them to conclude that the other side is not merely wrong, but evil. Some two-thirds of America’s far left and half of the far right say they dislike not only the other side’s ideas, but also the people who hold them.

But mostly, I’m bemused that he’s used the recent death of Pamela Bone as the hook into this latest exercise in “man of straw, woman of flax” traditionalist apologetics.

Next time you bitch about Tim Blair getting a mention in Missing Link, I’ll be asking Jacques to apply his magic mouse click.

But you can resolve that paradox by going an extra step or two in strict construction once you have the necessary legislation in place.

First get waterboarding mandated as a punishment in a majority of states. Now you can declare that while it’s cruel it’s not “unusual” and therefore allowable under the US constitution since it’s not “cruel and unusual”.

If the framers of the constitution had meant to bar cruel punishments they should have barred “cruel or unusual” punishment. And been very clear that they meant that or to be read in the inclusive, rather than the exclusive sense.

That makes it pertinacious Patrick nil, ML team 2 by my count.

Jonathan Rauch convicts Republican Presidential candidate John McCain of Burkean conservatism

Jonathan Rauch, who is usually a sensible writer, must have lost his mind. We’re talking about the all war, all the time candidate here.

Trust me on this gilmae: His move into Big ‘Ole Daddy Bear territory is relatively recent, but “prudish” is decidedly 1990’s Sullivan.

Further, Scalia didn’t say anything to the effect of your comment, he just noted the effect of the Constitution. To wit:

“To the contrary,” Scalia says. “Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.”
…
And when he’s hurting you in order to get information from youyou dont say he’s punishing you. Whats he punishing you for? He’s trying to extract,” Scalia says.

Who knows what the drafters were thinking? But it isn’t a stretch to think that when they banned ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, they weren’t thinking of torture, as an information-gathering exercise, at all. Maybe well they simply assumed it to be ‘beyond the pale’, like blacks and stuff, maybe they just weren’t thinking about it full stop. But they certainly didn’t draft for it.

Last time was an absurd comment on McCain’s tax policy that contradicted itself let alone economics, this time, well, check out Hilzoy’s own mea culpa:

I gather, from comments, that Scalia’s view that nothing done before conviction counts as “punishment”, as that term is used in the Eighth Amendment, is true. If so, I regret having assumed the opposite.

Ooops. Scalia 1, Hilzoy 0, ML -1.