SLevinson at law.utexas.edu
Tue Dec 6 13:54:33 PST 2005
Doug concludes his posting by writing:
So I think the objection to the government's equality argument is
not that it is false, but that it assumes the conclusion.
But isn't this the thrust of Peter Westen's "emptiness" argument, that
all equality arguments assume their conclusion (i.e., that one has a
right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race, religion,
gender, etc., as against a widely shared perception that it is perfectly
all right to discriminate against people on grounds of residence, age,
attractiveness, etc., etc., etc.)? My initial posting was that the
NYTimes was "misleading," not that it was necessarily "false." The term
"equality" is too capacious to generate easily identifiable "true" or
"false" arguments (or perhaps I should omit "easily").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof