Posner’s perfidy: Worthy no more |

Posner’s perfidy: Worthy no more

Ronald Reagan surely is turning in his grave. That’s who appointed Judge Richard Posner to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, in 1981. It’s the same Judge Posner who, 35 years later, is failing the wisdom test — and abysmally so. Why else would he rip the Constitution he supposedly serves?

Here’s what Posner wrote in a recent commentary for Slate:

“I see absolutely no value to a judge spending decades, years, months, weeks, day(s), hours, minutes or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments and its implementation (across centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th) do not speak to today.”

Posner swore an oath to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon him under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. But how can he do that as he openly encourages ignorance of our national charter and, by extension, the Constitution’s timeless and principled underpinnings?

Simply put, he cannot. For this is an irreconcilable conflict. And a judge so conflicted no longer should be a judge.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.