General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Idiot Teacher Asked 4th-Graders to Give 3 Good Reasons for Slavery [View all]Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)s/he didn't ask them to make an argument supporting a concept. She asked them to explain why slavery was good.
I could make better arguments explaining why Loving v. Virginia did not legally require or support interstate recognition of same-gender marriage (prior to Obergefell than virtually all of the proponents (who tended to let emotion get in their way).
I can easily make the case now that discrimination based on sexual orientation is still legal - again, better than most of the proponents of legalized discrimination.
I would not, in a million years, defend marriage discrimination, or discrimination based on sexual orientation, as good. Nor would it be appropriate to ask anyone - let alone a 4th grader - to do so.
The skill of arguing that the law supports, or doesn't support, a acting in a certain way (as long as it passes the laugh test) is definitely a skill taught in law school. Defending an offensive value judgment (slavery is good) is not.
There is a difference - and Scalia represented that difference extremely well.
On any subject other than homosexuality, he effectively argued that the law supported each opinion he wrote. When the law permitted two interpretations, I universally would have come out on the other side - were I the judge. But his reasoning was legally sound, even if I would have applied a different reasoning.
On the subject of homosexuality, however, his reasoning was "homosexuality is bad" (value judgment - not legal reasoning. That was not a legal skill. It was a value judgment - and in virtually every case, once you got through the spittle he was spewing, there was no legal basis for his opinion. It was all value judgment.
The two are not the same. Students were asked to support a value judgment (slavery is good). Not a legal statement (the law permits slavery).