Comments Elsewhere

Scott:

Such an amendment doubtlessly infringes individual liberty — but it is the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold the Constitution, and that would include the flag-burning amendment.

Is it your position that a person can be duty-bound to inflict an injustice on others? If so, what sort of “duty” are you talking about and why in the world do you believe that?

Brandon:

Now that I think about it more, though, it doesn’t really seem that there is any way to take discretionary power out of the hands of the judges. Law, no matter how clear, can’t interpret itself. Unless we want to give everyone veto power over every law, there always has to be some ultimate authority, or some group of authorities, who can say that black is white and have no one to answer to for it.

Do you think that “Each dispute over law must be finally settled by some authority” entails “There must be some authority that finally settles all disputes over law”?

If so, how is your argument different from the (fallacious) “Every person has a favorite color; therefore there is some Supreme Color that is every person’s favorite”?

If not, then why does the fact that each dispute over law must be finally settled by some authority give any reason to invest supreme authority over all disputes over law in any one person or group of people?

(See also: [1], [2], and [3].)