Bub, Andrew
07-01-2003, 01:12 PM
Referring to Fareed Zakaria: I don't particularly like the way Scalia bases his distinction on the Court's interpretation of a statute's "purpose"--shouldn't making a racial distinction be enough, whatever its purpose? But Scalia clearly indicates that banning interracial sex would still be unconstitutional in his scheme, even if banning sodomy would be constitutionally OK--the opposite of what Zakaria says he says.
Zakaria owes Scalia an apology, no?. ...
Update: Zakaria e-mails:
you're right. i slipped up. i meant to say that he would regard anti-masturbation laws as ok. i said anti-miscegenation. i would be grateful if you would post this reply. i do owe scalia an apology.
It doesn't bother me that Zakaria made a mistake. It doesn't bother me that he apologized for it. It does bother me that Zakaria is apparently one of those yahoos who doesn't capitalize in his emails. Am I petty?
Zakaria owes Scalia an apology, no?. ...
Update: Zakaria e-mails:
you're right. i slipped up. i meant to say that he would regard anti-masturbation laws as ok. i said anti-miscegenation. i would be grateful if you would post this reply. i do owe scalia an apology.
It doesn't bother me that Zakaria made a mistake. It doesn't bother me that he apologized for it. It does bother me that Zakaria is apparently one of those yahoos who doesn't capitalize in his emails. Am I petty?