< meta name="DC.Date.Valid.End" content="20050825"> Amendment Nine: Simple Sophistry

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Simple Sophistry

Armando still has a problem with Reason. His arguments repeatedly contradict themselves. Just when he's been caught, and in danger of being found out, he argues the opposite of what he already said and makes no apology for it. Here is an example, with context first.

The Context. Armando believes that Republican judicial nominiees like Judge Owens are "judicial activists" because of their intemperance, or, propensity to make rulings in order to achieve a particular result (instead of impartially applying the law, no matter the result). If you don't believe me, ask Armando, or go read this. Armando distinguishes between objecting to a judge because they are "results based" or "activist" or "judicially intemperant" and objecting to a judge for exclusively "ideological" reasons. He says when you object for both reasons, its a good objection.

The Question. Federalist X then asks: could it not be the case that result oriented judging is an "ideology" all to itself? [note: I know Federalist X well. He often asks questions like this. They may sound overly formal, but if you think about, should the answer be "yes" then Armando's argument above is completely meaningless.]

The Contradiction. Armando responds: Red herring ... And the whole substantive due process conundrum. Read the Slaughterhouse Cases to understand why the results based canard is not germane.

But later in the same thread he says: The most common line of attack on judicial activism is very much related to substantive due process.

The Conclusion. To me, this is pretty simple sophistry. First Armando says that substantive due process is a Red herring, the whole issue is not germane. Later, when it suits him, he decides that substantive due process is very much related, in fact it is most common. If anyone, even Armando, can save these two statements from contradiction, I will publicly ask Federalist X to apologize or retract. Here at Amendment IX we value criticism. Go for it.