Calling guard dog and others

[Rostere]

I wasn't saying judges shouldn't interpret the law. Clearly their job is to interpret the law. What I'm saying is they need to be completely honest in trying to determine what the original intent of the law was, instead of coming to a conclusion first and then using twisted reasoning to justify why the law says what they want it to say.

 

Exactly.

 

And what will be an honest attempt to apply the law in the eyes of one person, will be twisted reasoning to another. Yet both judgements are interpretations of the law in question. That is why the law is often not as important as the people who interpret it. A good example is interpretation of the so-called divine law in the Bible and the Quran. All people in these religions read respectively basically the same text but come to VERY different conclusions. Catholic or Protestant? Sunni or Shia? Since they have largely the same holy texts, you could believe they would be very similar, but throughout history these have fought wars which have cost countless lives. The most important and final judgement always comes from our inner moral compass, not from a piece of text on a paper. The law is only a crude tool to easier organize society according to consensus, it has no ethical value in itself.

 

You could use the American constitution both to prevent people from gaining rights they have in most civilized countries and to promote equality and justice, depending on how you choose to interpret it. Eventually, it will also become as outdated as the Quran and the Bible (read especially the Old Testament for some WTF!? moments), which is why you should always remember that there is nothing inherently important about any particular set of laws.

[Walsingham]

While I think it's going way too far to describe the US justices as pushing personal agendas, I think it's much less contentious to suggest that various presidents have got into the habit of trying to load the supreme court. Fair?

[Wrath of Dagon]

While I think it's going way too far to describe the US justices as pushing personal agendas, I think it's much less contentious to suggest that various presidents have got into the habit of trying to load the supreme court. Fair?

Which is their prerogative.

 

And here's where you screw up, you're placing your personal values and desires on the laws interpretation, making it so that YOUR way is the only right way while the judges (who have considerable more knowledge of the law, it's application and inception than either of us) are able to interpret it separately but get cast as writing their own laws if it doesn't conform to your view.

That's right, a regular person can't understand the law, so obviously democracy is unworkable. We should just go ahead and install a wise Latina as a dictator.

 

Just because a judge knows all the legal tricks doesn't mean he won't push his personal political agenda using the law as an excuse.

 

The most important and final judgement always comes from our inner moral compass, not from a piece of text on a paper. The law is only a crude tool to easier organize society according to consensus, it has no ethical value in itself.

 

You could use the American constitution both to prevent people from gaining rights they have in most civilized countries and to promote equality and justice, depending on how you choose to interpret it. Eventually, it will also become as outdated as the Quran and the Bible (read especially the Old Testament for some WTF!? moments), which is why you should always remember that there is nothing inherently important about any particular set of laws.

The moral compass should be involved when passing laws, when interpreting law the judge should do his best to follow the law's intent. It's just like I thought, you don't really believe in the rule of law. Just remember, like it says in our courthouse, "where law ends, tyranny begins".

Edited September 23, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

While I think it's going way too far to describe the US justices as pushing personal agendas, I think it's much less contentious to suggest that various presidents have got into the habit of trying to load the supreme court. Fair?

Which is their prerogative.

 

And here's where you screw up, you're placing your personal values and desires on the laws interpretation, making it so that YOUR way is the only right way while the judges (who have considerable more knowledge of the law, it's application and inception than either of us) are able to interpret it separately but get cast as writing their own laws if it doesn't conform to your view.

That's right, a regular person can't understand the law, so obviously democracy is unworkable. We should just go ahead and install a wise Latina as a dictator.

 

Just because a judge knows all the legal tricks doesn't mean he won't push his personal political agenda using the law as an excuse.

Nice try but no. You're being specifically obtuse again. I wasn't saying that normal people can't interpret the law, but I was saying that a Judge probably was more qualified than you or I could ever hope to be to interpret it... given that they have YEARS of law school to go through, and usually have the access to the judges opinions on other cases similar to the one they're judging.

 

Of course, that wasn't totally my point, my main point was what Rostere said. If a person doesn't conform to your personal interpretation of the Law, then you're assuming they're legislating using the law rather than anything else. Guess what? You're not always right, and therefore you're opinions on the law aren't always right. Nobody is always correct, but usually the most informed person, who's job it is to understand and know what is in question, is going to be more correct than a internet forum goer.

 

Jesus, you're sounding like my friends dad... he doesn't accept the information of anyone who doesn't have a Masters degree as truth, and then if they do have a masters and don't agree, they're automatically either corrupt or have an agenda.

[Pidesco]

How nice.