by Over the weekend I participated in some fascinating conversations at Marquette as part of a conference on social justice organized by Christopher Wolfe. With folks like Jean Bethke Elshtain, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and John Finnis in the lineup, I (wisely) did more listening than talking. I found Wolterstorff’s exploration of social justice to be especially interesting.
Read the full postArchive for the 'Robert Vischer' Category
LRE-ers and readers might be interested in this: Submissions and nominations of articles are now being accepted for the first annual Fred C. Zacharias Memorial Prize for Scholarship in Professional Responsibility.
Read the full postHuman Rights Campaign has launched a new website called “NOM Exposed” dedicated to uncovering the “truth, lies, and connections about the so-called National Organization for Marriage.” I’m all in favor of providing the public with information about important political issues, but one look at this website makes clear that the primary motivation is not to provide information, but to paint opponents of same-sex marriage in the most sinister light possible, a sort of public shaming targeting anyone with the gall to stake out a position in support of traditional marriage.
Read the full postThe same-sex marriage controversy in Iowa has spilled into the judicial retention system, where there is an active campaign to remove the supreme court justices who voted to strike down the state statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Read the full postOne of the many ways the Constitution’s framers showed their collective wisdom was by embedding the rule of law into the very framework of our system of government. Judicial review of popularly enacted laws keeps the majority accountable to underlying constitutional principles. Of course, one person’s core constitutional safeguard is another’s judicial activism run amok. And so, in a range of hot-button “culture war” cases, lower courts have tried to steer clear of the dreaded “judicial activist” label by shifting their analysis from the constitutional principles themselves to the facts through which the principles may be invoked. At times these days, the rule of law looks more like the rule of facts.
Read the full postI was out of town last week, so I just now had the chance to sit down and read Perry v. Schwarzenegger. A few initial reactions: First, what were the Prop 8 proponents’ counsel thinking in only putting on two experts, neither of whom strike me as especially strong under Daubert/Kumho Tire? To be clear, I think David Blankenhorn is a very thoughtful writer and effective advocate, but that doesn’t make him a good choice as a testifying expert witness. More broadly, if constitutional litigation is a battle of public policy arguments (and I’m not saying it should be), this one was no contest.
Read the full postAre atheists obliged to explain the universe’s existence or else retreat to agnosticism?
Read the full postLike Bob, I’ve been neglecting the LRE conversation due to recent travels. One particularly fascinating event was a conference in Loppiano, Italy on “The Charismatic Principle in Economic and Civil Life.” After two days of discussion, it’s still a fairly elusive and malleable concept in my mind, though one helpful way to think about the theme is to distinguish it from our tendency to approach social progress and reform from an institutional perspective.
Read the full postOne consequence of the rise of radical Islamic movements is my own temptation to buy into the notion, often promoted by media coverage, that we are faced with a simple choice: embrace secularism or embrace theocracy. If that’s the choice, I’ll opt for secularism, thank you very much. That might explain my own initial “I’m smiling a little inside even though I know I shouldn’t be” reaction to “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” I oppose censorship, and I am concerned that threats of violence are inhibiting free speech. At the same time, I need to remember that respect for religion is not a sign of weakness but an act of strength.
Read the full postMaybe we’re getting the religious composition of the Supreme Court all wrong. Maybe, in terms of a Justice’s approach to religion belief and how it matters to a person’s life, all nine are Protestant.
Read the full post
