Bobby - I left this unanswered online, because it wasn't really a response
to my post, but rather to Scalia's point, which I was paraphrasing and
certainly not endorsing. I was interested in the rhetorical genre -- is it
really jeremiad? We expect that of Scalia, the culturally conservative
moralist, but my argument was that it actually fits the Thayer/Holmes mode
-- as in, we must rise above these passions and stay cool, rather than we
must engage our passions to sweep away these modern corruptions, which is
the jeremiad. When we hear him say "homosexual agenda" we expect the
latter, but he teases us and sticks with the former.
Tom Grey
Stanford Law School
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Justin Lipkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Discussion cc:
list for con law Subject: Re: Jeremiad or jihad?
professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.ucla.edu>
06/27/2003 12:38 PM
Please respond to
Discussion list for
con law professors
What is the difference between taking sides in the cultural wars in
favor of gay and lesbian rights and taking sides in the "political wars" by
embracing the "New Federalism"? Justice Scalia probably would say the
former has nothing to do with the Constitution, while the latter does. But
isn't that a petitio principii of the first order?
Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
