mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Sun Jun 3 16:40:43 PDT 2007
Hmm - what's the account of the U.S. Constitution according to which
Virginia stands in the same relation to the United States as does Turkey
or Sudan? Oh, I remember....
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
223 Areeda Hall
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138
ph: 617-496-4451 (office); 202-374-9571 (mobile); 617-496-4866 (fax)
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
DavidEBernstein at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:33 PM
To: marty.lederman at comcast.net; SLevinson at law.utexas.edu;
rosentha at chapman.edu; curtism at bellsouth.net; s-gerber at onu.edu;
CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: "Explaining" justices
I think that the Constitution has absolutely nothing meaningful to say
about genocide in Sudan. If I were on the Supreme Court, and a Sudanese
victim brought a constitutional claim to me, I'd rule that no relief was
available. Does that mean that I'm in favor of "neglecting" the
Sudanese genocide? Or am I just following the law?
I take it that the Constitution was not thought to have anything
meaningful to say about how state prison systems operated for the first
180 or so years of its existence. It doesn't strike me that this means
that the Justices in those years thought it was "okay" as a normative
matter to treat prisoners badly.
In a message dated 6/3/2007 6:04:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
marty.lederman at comcast.net writes:
"Only if one starts from the presumption that the Constitution
has anything meaningful to say about state prisons can one accuse Thomas
of neglecting prisoners' rights, rather than simply following the
Well, of course.
But more to the point . . . only if one starts from the
presumption that prisoners's rights should be neglected could one
conclude that the Constitution has nothing "meaningful" to say about
See what's free at AOL.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof