[EL] [Lawcourt-l] Looking for a Scalia quote

[Schultz, David A.]

Of course it is foolish to think about moral concepts in the abstract or in
the singular.  Ethical reasoning as well as legal reasoning is not simply
the singular grabbing a a principle and applying it to a case, contrary to
the Wechlers of the world.  Ethics and law are full of many often
conflicting principles and the true art of adjudication and decision making
is determining which principles apply when and how to affect tradeoffs.
One critique of judicial minimalism is that it reaches conclusions without
any guidance to where the law is headed.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Lief Carter (R) <
LHCarter at coloradocollege.edu> wrote:

> I can't resist this opportunity to get on my trusty old plug of a horse
> and ride it a short distance once again.  Of course judges aren't trained
> in moral philosophy.  Why should they be?  The very notion that
> a freely standing abstract concept--in moral philosophy or history or "the
> Constitution" or anything else--necessarily determines how a legal dispute
> must come out is sooo philosophically untenable that it's practically
> medieval, or at least theologically scholastic. To think this way blocks a
> judge from seeing that the facts of the case and the social context in
> which it rests must always be the core of her solution.  These facts are
> infinitely variable, and the real judicial job is not to determine what
> *the* law says but to find which of countless different versions of "law"
> makes the for not a "right" or "correct" but  a coherent outcome in the
> unique case that the parties have spent time and money disputing.  The
> latest edition of Tom Burke's and my REASON IN LAW, to be published in a
> couple of months from the University of Chicago Press, is full of fresh
> examples of this approach. And with that shameless plug, I'll dismount.
>
>
> PL
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu <
> lawcourt-l-bounces at legal.umass.edu> on behalf of Javier Martin Reyes <
> jm4098 at columbia.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 7, 2015 1:43 PM
> *To:* Schultz, David A.
> *Cc:* lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Lawcourt-l] Looking for a Scalia quote
>
> Maybe this one?
>
> “They are not trained to be moral philosophers, which is what it takes to
> determine whether there should be, and hence is, a right to abortion, or
> homosexual sodomy, assisted suicide, et cetera,” he said. “And history is a
> rock-hard science compared to moral philosophy.”
>
>
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325677-justice-scalia-not-my-job-to-act-as-moral-philosopher
>
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325677-justice-scalia-not-my-job-to-act-as-moral-philosopher>
> Justice Scalia: ‘Not my job’ to be ‘moral philosopher ...
> Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday criticized judges for
> acting as “moral philosophers” in decisions on abortion and gay rights.The
> conservative ...
> Read more...
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325677-justice-scalia-not-my-job-to-act-as-moral-philosopher>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I am  looking for a Scalia quote I recently saw but cannot remember where
>> or when.  Scalia supposedly said somewhere that Supreme Court Justices
>> should not be political theorists (or did he say philosophers?).  Does
>> anyone know the quote and its citation.  Thank you.
>> --
>> David Schultz, Professor
>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>> Hamline University
>> Department of Political Science
>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>> MS B 1805
>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
>> My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
>>
>> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lawcourt-l mailing list
>> Lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu
>> https://list.umass.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawcourt-l
>>
>>
>


-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151207/5053c4af/attachment.html>