My thoughts on whatever

Contact address
cm44134 at gmail dot com

blogs I read on a far too regular basis

 
Eric Muller posting at the Volokh Conspiracy revists an old Supreme Court decision to revisits an old Supreme Court decision (Maryland v. Craig) to make the point that Justice Scalia is brilliant. The salient question seems to be the following: Could the state alllow an alleged molester to "confront" his accuser only over closed-circuit TV? The idea being this would be easier for the child, but would still allow the questioning of the accuser.
Scalia joined with Brennan Marshall and Stevens in the dissent. Scalia's brilliance was allegedly displayed by pointing out that the state was trying to have its cake and eat it too. It was trying to protect the child and try the molester. The thinking was that each was perhaps slightly harmed, but Justice was served. Scalia's arguement seems to have been that the state must choose one path.
Why is this brilliant? I think it is ridiculous and infantile. Adults can compromise. Only children (and fundamentalists) believe that compromise is evil. It is this sort of view that makes Justice Scalia not brilliant but scary.
posted by Slim at 9:42 PM