by On the Mirror of Justice blog, Michael Perry posts an essay by Michael Walzer entitled “How Passover Could Cure Us of the Tea Party.” (Perry’s own heading suggests that “Lent” might serve a similar function.) Walzer’s essay is for the most part an eloquent and edifying reflection on how Passover is a time to remember that we once were slaves in Egypt or, in more contemporary terms, that we or our ancestors were once immigrants, laborers, or factory workers. He proposes that it would be a good thing “if we gathered once every year and ceremonially remembered our working class past– the tiredness, the sweat, the bent backs, the hungry children.” That proposal is then immediately followed, without even a paragraph break, by this conclusion: “I am sure it would be harder to attend a tea party.”
Read the full postMonthly Archive for March, 2010
by Last week, a North Carolina jury awarded a woman $9 million in an Alienation of Affections claim against a woman who had enticed her husband away. North Carolina is one of only 13 states that retain the Alienation of Affections claim. The vast majority of states have abrogated such claims. In my view, these courts and legislatures do not take marriage seriously. They illustrate the individualistic direction of the law.
Read the full postAs Sam Levine notes below, I recently spoke on a panel at BYU’s Religiously Affiliated Law Schools Conference on “Brandeis the Humble, Pragmatic, Prudent Prophet.” “Humble,” “pragmatic,” and “prudent” are not often adjectives associated with prophets, but in Brandeis’s case, I think they fit (as does the noun).
Read the full post
by The late Richard John Neuhaus used to emphasize that the priest sexual abuse scandal was about “fidelity, fidelity, fidelity,” and George Weigel makes the same point now. At one level, I agree. On another level, though, “fidelity” is too simplistic. Most of my sins stem less from a deliberate lack of faithfulness, and more from a failure to come to grips with my own tendencies to justify my behavior through mental gymnastics that in the end amount to self-delusion. Giving myself a pep talk every morning about “being more faithful” only goes so far. That’s why relationships of accountability are so important.
Read the full post
by Last year Doug Kmiec and I authored an opinion in the San Francisco Chronicle about a possible solution to the same-sex marriage debate in California. We proposed that all marriages be considered civil unions (or some other name) so that the state is removed from defining marriage, leaving the decision of whether to recognize a marriage to religious traditions. Although the idea of “civil unions for all” is not new, we found this solution to be particularly useful under the circumstances confronted by the California Supreme Court when the validity of Proposition 8 was challenged.
Read the full post
by The Center for Law, Religion, and the Global Community at St. John’s University School of Law will host this year’s Religious Legal Theory Conference in November. Like last year’s inaugural conference at Seton Hall, this year’s symposium will draw insights from a variety of perspectives. The theme is “Religion in Law and Law in Religion.” The formal call for papers is below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
Read the full post
by In describing the purpose of this blog, Bob Cochran cites Tom Shaffer’s classic reference to the need for “prophetic witness” in the law. More recently, Shaffer published a series of articles describing lawyers as prophets. Others have depicted judges as prophets. For example, this past week, Sandy Levinson delivered the annual Brandeis Lecture at Pepperdine Law School, on the topic of constitutional compromises. Levinson noted that Brandeis, who earned the nickname “Isaiah,” often spoke in a prophetic voice through his forceful and compelling dissents. Indeed, Levinson observed that prophets are typically uncompromising in their commitment to truth and principle. Though Levinson cited instances in which even Brandeis resorted to compromise with other justices, the picture of Brandeis as Isaiah remains an inspiring image.
Read the full post
by I am writing this as I watch the NCAA basketball tournament, which reminds me of the many ongoing debates about achieving level playing fields in sports, politics, and law. There is something uniquely American about the desire to ensure that our favorite pastimes are governed by rules that treat everyone equally. That is why one of the most closely watched telecasts of the college basketball season doesn’t feature any basketball at all. Instead, the nation is captivated for an hour as the 64 teams that get to play in the basketball tournament are announced. And then the fans of the teams that fancied themselves as one of the 64 but whose names were not called complain about their “unfair” exclusion from the tournament.
Read the full postOn the blog Mirror of Justice, writing from an explicitly pro-life perspective, Greg Sisk posts “Two Cheers for Bart Stupak.” http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/03/two-cheers-for-bart-stupak.html
Sisk argues that Stupak has a long history of supporting the pro-life cause, and that although he erred at the end through bad judgment and “stumbled at the finish line,” he should still be respected and embraced by the pro-life constituency. “At any dinner of pro-life leaders,” Sisk says, “I would be proud to have Rep. Stupak at my table.”
Read the full post
by Since, as a Presbyterian, I am a genuine puritan and Rob is only a pretender, I thought I’d weigh in on the Vice-President’s “hot mike” problem.
One of the reasons language like the Vice-President’s is unfortunate is that it has a coarsening effect. I don’t just mean that we all get used to hearing things that ought to offend us, though that is certainly true. An equally significant problem is that such language is coarsening in the sense that it substitutes for articulate speech. In this sense, the Vice-President might just as well have whispered “Party on, Garth” into the President’s ear.
Read the full post
