Judge Guido Calabresi, former Sterling Professor and Dean of the Yale Law School who was appointed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President Clinton, recently stated in a speech at the Harvard Law School sponsored by the American Constitution Society that
the 14th Amendment is entirely remedial and stands for the proposition that to give equality, you may need to treat some people differently.
Yes, and we had to destroy the village in order to save it.
DISCRIMINATIONS hereby awards Judge Calabresi the William Calley Medal for the Defense of Equality.
In order to save the 14th Amendment, we need to treat some judges differently — impeach them.
The 14th Amendment is “entirely remedial”? Whoa. I do not understand where he’s discovering that.
Reading on: the line about “the law in its majestic equality” is of course not a paraphrase of Scalia but a translation of Anatole France.
And he trots out the old argument about abortion rights — that men aren’t ordinarily required to give of their own bodies to save the life of even a close relative, so why should women be made to? To which I have always wanted to answer that when the theorists of “reproductive rights” ever get around to trying to make it as easy for a single man or a gay male couple to have a wanted child as it currently is for a single woman or a lesbian couple, it’ll be time to talk about mandatory kidney donation. So far, all the “reproductive rights” seem to run in one direction. Never mind, just veering off-topic into a favorite rant . . .
“Yes, and we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
talk about a forced analogy.
How can people so far removed from reality appointed to the courts. How can such a loon head a law school?
I’d like to see Judge Calabresi’s dictionary, because mine is different. Silly beyond measure, and so very harmful.
John: Pardon my obtuseness, but can you elaborate on the Calley reference? Is this the same Calley from My Lai?
Hube – I don’t think that famous quote was actually from Calley himself, though the Calley of My Lai is indeed the person I was referring to. I think the quote has become sort of a generic Vietnam comment.
Calebresi: We have to destroy the concept of equality in order to save it.
Calley: We have to destroy the village in order to save it.
A perfectly good analogy.
Dom
Thanks John, Dom! :-)
14th Amendment: Not meant for equality for all
John Rosenberg picks up on a very interesting — not to mention scary — theory of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by Judge Guido Calabresi, former Sterling Professor and Dean of the Yale Law School who was appointed to…
“A perfectly good analogy.”
Except that we did destroy villages. Here, we haven’t done that much damage to equality.
Read why we had to destroy the village:
http://www.thehistorynet.com/vn/blwhathappenedatcamne/
I don’t think the media has changed
actus,
Except that we did destroy villages. Here, we haven’t done that much damage to equality.
You think not? When the current speculation about who’s going to be nominated for the next Supreme Court vacancy is less about what the Justice will do than about whether the Justice will be female, Black, Hispanic . . . ?
I submit that this represents very great “damage to equality.”
‘I submit that this represents very great “damage to equality.” ‘
On the question of women on the court, we have some evidence about the effect to equality. The bit after the “moreover” is the real interesting result.
Female Judges Matter
Jennifer L. Peresie
114 Yale L.J. 1759 (2005)
This Note finds that the gender composition of the bench affected federal appellate court outcomes in Title VII sexual harassment and sex discrimination cases in 1999, 2000, and 2001. An empirical study (n = 1666) shows that female judges decided for plaintiffs more often than did male judges. Moreover, male judges on panels with female judges decided for plaintiffs more than twice as often as those on all-male panels. Gender mattered more than ideology in determining outcomes. The Note discusses four explanations for the observed effect of gender on collegial decisionmaking: deliberation, deference, logrolling, and moderation.
Affirmative action is irrational; it is a contradiction in terms: equal treatment=unequal treatment.