Seems like both sides wants the last word in the Scalia vs. Posner cage match. Last we checked, Scalia called Posner a liar. Posner responds, and it's covered here:
Now Posner has fired back in a two-page response that he
provided to Reuters. "Responding to a Supreme Court Justice who
calls one a liar requires special care in expression," Posner
said in an accompanying email.
In the response, Posner said he was neither lying nor
mistaken in his critique.
"Even if I accepted Scalia's narrow definition of
'legislative history' and applied it to his opinion in Heller, I
would not be telling a 'lie,'" Posner wrote in his response.
District of Columbia v. Heller is the Supreme Court decision
striking down the Washington handgun ban.
In the interview with Reuters on Monday, Scalia said
"legislative history" refers to history of the enactment of a
bill in the legislature and covers floor speeches and prior
committee drafts, not "the history of the times."
Scalia also called legislative history "garbage" and "the
last remaining fiction of the common law," noting that lobbyists
can get such history inserted into the legislative record to
change the meaning of the text that is adopted.
In his response on Thursday, Posner defended his use of the
term, writing that Scalia was using legislative history in the
gun rights case when he turned to a "variety of English and
American sources from which he distilled the existence of a
common law right of armed self-defense that he argued had been
codified in the Second Amendment."
Scalia may define "legislative history" narrowly, Posner
wrote, but his co-author, Bryan Garner, does not. Posner quoted
a definition from Black's Law Dictionary, of which Garner is the
editor, that describes "legislative history" as: "The background
and events leading to the enactment of a statute, including
hearings, committee reports, and floor debates."
"Background and events leading to the enactment" of the
Second Amendment are the focus of Scalia's opinion in the gun
rights case, Posner argued.
He also cited pages from the opinion that discuss the Second
Amendment's drafting history, which he called "legislative
history in its narrowest sense."
1 comment:
Judge beef is getting old. Scalia is brilliant, but he is a bully and a buffoon, or, more importanly, he comes accross as a bully and a buffoon. Our justice system requires a general acceptance of judicial decisions. The credibility of judges and the view of judges as thoughtful, impartial arbiters are imperitive. Scalia's buffoonery and search for the spotlight detracts from that perception and erodes the confidence in judicial decisions.
tubby needs to grow up
Post a Comment