Legal Muse

Insert witty tagline here…

More Proof Justice Scalia is a God.

with 7 comments

This is worth the read – Scalia writes the dissenting opinion arguing that Casey Martin (handicap golfer) shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the PGA.  His dissent was basically based on his belief that the Supreme Court shouldn’t even be hearing the case (he maintains there were tons of procedural reasons it never should have gone this far, and says so in the opinion).  The best part, is when he says

“The answer, we learn, is yes.” – as if the other Justices are letting him in on a big secret.

Either way, I couldn’t help from laughing out load in the basement of the Pentagon when I read this case.  I LOVE SCALIA!!!!!!!

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf – and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point – then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this August Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

Advertisements

Written by DMN

September 23, 2008 at 1:36 am

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree.

    Dissent

    September 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  2. Of course. What other choice is there when dealing with Scalia?

    openfire06

    September 24, 2008 at 4:26 am

  3. Care about the little people?

    Dissent

    September 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm

  4. Um, so there’s no doubt that Scalia is smart, but…don’t you think he’s a little…CRAZY?

    That, and I find his interpretation of Constitutional semantics a little short-sighted.

    I stand by eagerly for the barrage 🙂

    Melissa

    September 25, 2008 at 11:06 am

  5. This is too amazing for words. I ❤ Scalia!!!

    I

    September 25, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  6. I’m going to refrain from commenting on any cases that I may have read that haven’t been covered in class, because until you completely rip it apart and analyze it in a legal view, I think it’s very subjective as to what is viewed positively or negatively.

    I will say in that the cases that I’ve read, I’ve been impressed with both his interpretation, and his prescience. Generally, if he says one thing (like, we’re not going to rule in favor of this, because it would be 9 judges making up law for the whole country), he generally has a recommended solution, such as enacting state legislation or something similar. A lot of people don’t like this for some reason, but I happen to believe in voting on laws, even if it does take more time.

    Remember, this is the same guy that upheld flag burning, even though he absolutely hates it. People have branded him as being a conservative puppet, but time after time he’s gone with the constitutional intent even if it goes against his political or social beliefs.

    To me, that’s all I could ask for in a judge.

    openfire06

    September 25, 2008 at 8:24 pm

  7. Hmmm…I’m not sure if I would agree that Justice Scalia should be suggesting what kind of legislation should be enacted…well-meaning, I’m sure, but a little presumptuous, perhaps.

    As you have probably already guessed, I would like to hear the musings of your legal mind on Originalism. My dispute is not with his objectivity; it’s with his logic. I haven’t read many of his opinions (I think one or two in undergrad, and then most recently, the DC gun ban)- so I eagerly await some education on the seduction of Antonin Scalia (at your leisure of course).

    Happy Friday!

    Melissa

    September 26, 2008 at 10:47 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: