Greenhouse miscontrues

jollyroger — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:32:44 +0000

In reply to ‘A Big New Power’ (normally respectful & scholarly Supreme-Court expert freaks out about voting rights case)

Greenhouse miscontrues "originalism"...it refers to the original consitution (absent the amendments). Clearly, at least for Nino, the amendments are a secondary inconvenience, except for the 2nd...

Ms. Greenhouse makes two

LULU — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:50:05 +0000

In reply to ‘A Big New Power’ (normally respectful & scholarly Supreme-Court expert freaks out about voting rights case)

Ms. Greenhouse makes two assumptions. Both assumptions are about very important outcomes. If I were a betting man I would give odds she is right on the second but on quite shaky grounds on the first. Wait, I am a betting man. I'll give two to one that five of Supremos vote as she predicts. I just wish I had as much confidence that the assumption in her very first sentence was also likely to turn out to be a correct prediction, but I'm not willing to bet on it, at least not for many years.

Years from now, when the Supreme Court has come to its senses, justices then sitting will look back on the spring of 2013 in bewilderment.

Fine article, IMHO.

dagblog - Comments for "‘A Big New Power’ (normally respectful & scholarly Supreme-Court expert freaks out about voting rights case)"

Greenhouse miscontrues

Ms. Greenhouse makes two