In the past I have enjoyed the fact that The Wall Street Journal annually runs its traditional Christmas editorial "In Hoc Anno Domini." I suppose that is because traditions have a cumulative effect, and I like that the editors of the paper have not bowed to contemporary pressure to diminish the significance of the holiday by reducing it to consumption or mere family time.
This year, however, I am finally able to give explicit expression to what has never sat completely well with me about the traditional editorial (reproduced in full below).
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Law and Moral Philosophy
Yesterday Robert H. Bork died. He was as polarizing a figure in American culture, politics, and jurisprudence as he was significant.
In recognition of his significance, the editors of The Wall Street Journal compiled excerpts from a number of Judge Bork's writings. One of those in particular struck me as worth reproducing. It concerns the public perception of law and morality. This perception, often confused, is a subject that I have noted previously (e.g., here, here, and here).
A person does not need to agree with Judge Bork to acknowledge the helpful clarity of his thinking and how that lucidity, even incisiveness, contributes to public discourse about matters of substance.
In recognition of his significance, the editors of The Wall Street Journal compiled excerpts from a number of Judge Bork's writings. One of those in particular struck me as worth reproducing. It concerns the public perception of law and morality. This perception, often confused, is a subject that I have noted previously (e.g., here, here, and here).
A person does not need to agree with Judge Bork to acknowledge the helpful clarity of his thinking and how that lucidity, even incisiveness, contributes to public discourse about matters of substance.
The Wall Street JournalThe Wisdom of Robert Bork
“Their Will Be Done,” July 5, 2005
Once the justices depart, as most of
them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the
Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral
philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules
in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the Court is
the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of
absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical
incompetence is lethal.
The Court's philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances, the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document.
A version of this article appeared December 20, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Wisdom of Robert Bork.
The Court's philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances, the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document.
A version of this article appeared December 20, 2012, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Wisdom of Robert Bork.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)