Comments Elsewhere

I asked:

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?

Scott replied:

Absolutely. That duty is a Constitutional one, and so long as we are speaking of Constitutional matters, it is the Justices’ duty to interpret law, not create it, nor impose their own personal predilections as to what is just and what is not on the country at large.

So are you arguing that the provisions of the Constitution can make it the case that Brown would be doing wrong to refuse to inflict an injustice on other people? (I take it that having a duty to do a deed means, in part, that refusing to do it would be doing wrong.) If this is an unfair representation of what you said, let me know.

If it is a fair gloss, I can’t help but wonder where the Constitution gets the extraordinary authority to undo basic principles of conduct, such as “injustice is a vice” and “you should refuse to indulge in vices.”