Scalia and Brown

[David Cruz]

While I too raised my eyebrow on first reading Sandy's statement, upon
reflection I interpret it in a different fashion.  I don't think
"courageous" assumes or implies either the correctness or the
incorrectness of Professor Maltz's position.  To me, it assumes only a
contemporary widespread and deep unpopularity of the position that Brown
was incorrectly decided, such that anyone asserting that position is
likely to face a hostile reaction.

-David B. Cruz, USC Law (Cal.)

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Michael McConnell wrote:

> I object to the word "courageous" since it assumes the conclusion.
>
> Michael McConnell
> University of Utah College of Law
> 332 South 1400 East Rm. 101
> Salt Lake City, UT 84112
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:31 PM
> > To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> > Subject: Scalia and Brown
> >
> >
> > While preparing for my constitutional law classes and
> > rereading Scalia's
> > dissent in VMI, I noted once again his reference to the "long
> > tradition . .
> > . of men's military colleges...."  Patricia Williams in the
> > current issue
> > of The Nation says that Scalia made a public statement while
> > visiting the
> > Columbia Law School that if Brown had come to him as a case of first
> > impression, he would have been forced to decide in favor of
> > the states.
> > Does anyone have similar knowledge of any such Scalian
> > statement?  The only
> > originalist I know who is courageous enough to say that Brown
> > was wrongly
> > decided is Earl Maltz.  (Perhaps I should say "living
> > originalist," since
> > Raoul Berger certainly was willing to criticize Brown.)
> >
> > sandy
> >
>