The New York Times published a weighty profile this week of our very own Robbie George. A professor of politics and jurisprudence, he’s probably known to most of you in his Constitutional Interpretation class (POL 315) as the guy who makes you attend double precept and tote around one of the longest textbooks known to the University. Yet George has quite a reputation on the political stage as well: According to the Times, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said George was one of “the most-talked-about thinkers in conservative legal circles.”Regardless of what you think about the whole NOM/Manhattan Declaration/Anscombe platform of George’s politics --- or perhaps for that very reason --- the article is worth a read, if only to take a closer look at the man and his views without the campus politics.
Posts
3 comments:
The thing about arguments built from the conclusion up, like all of Robby George's, is that they never really make sense.
omg anonymous you totally blew my mind with that reasoning. you were able to skillfully thrash the entirety of pr. george's career with a sharp, witty comment on the prox.
you're a perfect example of the simple-mindedness of and poor rational capabilities exhibited by liberals. /irony.
The author of the article must find his own personal ecstasy in mentioning Robby G's natural law. Robby's reasoning itself is subjective beyond credulity. When nature itself is continuously changing, who is to say what is "natural" at all? Let's take a good old hermaphrodite, both sets of functioning sexual organs, who takes the persona and legal status of a male at birth. Hermy the Hermaphrodite, a man by society's call, finds himself in a relationship with a regular man. Why can't they be married? By Robby George's natural law, they are as suitable to be married as a woman who dresses and acts like a man. Hermy the Hermaphrodite is capable of giving birth, so union with a man is (using Robby's words) a natural process in which Hermy is joined with his partner in a union of organs.
But of course this would be illegal in most US states, and I'm sure Robby himself would find problem with this union.
And that is just one example. It is just full of too many logical holes to be taken seriously. Like the commenter above said, this is probably because Robby George took an old idea (natural law) and has tried to twist it to fit his religious conservative hand-me-down ideals.
Post a Comment