Thursday, March 16, 2006

John Hindlicker, An Ad Hoc Tool

John Hindlicker, who should still be reeling from the well-deserved bitchslapping received at the hands of Wonkette (and the new Wonkette, no less!), rises to dishonestly slander Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Herr Hindlicker's critique of Justice Ginsburg's speech on that wingnut boogeyperson, consultation of foreign law, contains multiple misrepresentations. Let's focus on one:

Take, for example, the issue of homosexual sodomy. The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Lawrence v. Texas, that there is a constitutional right to commit acts of homosexual sodomy. Was this ruling informed by reference to foreign jurisprudence? If not, why not? On Ginsburg's approach, the justices apparently get to pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance. And, if foreign guidance had been sought in the Lawrence case, would the justices have looked to the law in Muslim countries where commission of such acts is a capital crime? If not, why not? There is no coherent answer to these questions, and, Ginsburg does not offer one. In reality, reference to foreign law is nothing more than an ad hoc tool to be invoked or ignored at will by justices who want to advance a left-wing agenda.

Hindlicker, being equally aroused and terrified at the thought of executing sodomites (but only the gay ones), doesn't bother to read the part, buried in the second paragraph of the speech, where Ginsburg states:

The U.S. judicial system will be the poorer, I have urged, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

Why isn't that plain enough for the Hindlicker? Though no doubt many of 'Licker's wingnut pals wish it were otherwise, the United States is a secular Nation. (Read all about it in the Bill of Rights, Johnny.) Thus, a "Muslim country," that is, a nation governed by the laws of a religion, would not have "a legal system with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own."

Only a lying sack of shit could conclude that Justice Ginsburg's speech doesn't answer the idiotic question Hindlicker poses.

The speech also specifically addresses the other matters on which Hindlicker professes ignorance, including whether the Lawrence court considered foreign jurisprudence.

Hindlicker states that "[y]ou really have to read it [Ginsburg's speech] to appreciate how far removed it is from American laws and traditions, and how demagogic it is in both tone and substance."

Yes, you do.

And no, you didn't, Toolboy.

No comments: