The best way to understand Scalia’s reasoning in the Heller decision is to read the decision and the dissents: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Yes. Posner’s arguments ring true, but many arguments ring true until they are subjected to criticism. That is why the closest approximation we have to the truth of any assertion is the product of an adversarial process. To really make an informed judgment, you need to search out the best of the opposite position before making a final conclusion. David Shemano From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Meeropol Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:48 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Posner on Scalia via David Shemano I am not at all interested in the fact that Scalia's reputation allegedly came out fine despite Posner's arguments. Though I am not a lawyer and this is in fact the first review I have ever read of one of Scalia's books, I found Posner's writing persuasive and in fact accessible to my non-specialist's eyes. Since I can read it myself, I don't care what those who create reputations think. Posner's arguments rang true. I again urge everyone to read it -- especially if they are like me, just coming to this issue. (I might also add that I've seen a couple of TV interviews with Scalia in which he makes very brief arguments in favor of his originalist views --- I will have to admit to a certain prejudice but he seemed quite flip.) I'd be curious how he (Scalia) dispensed with over a hundred years of received Supreme Court doctrine about the preamble to the 2nd Amendment --- "A well-regulated militia ....etc. etc." --- in HELLER. Those are also "original" words from the people who wrote the first 10 amendments. ____________________________________________________ Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from your system. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Robins Kaplan LLP http://www.robinskaplan.com ____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
