Quote O' Yesterday:
"Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go."
--ADAM COHEN in an Op-Ed in yesterday's New York Times.
Word.
In matters of law, I often return to a landmark contribution to judicial theory: A Time to Kill (1996).
Matt McConaughey is so delicious.
Mm.
Anyway. During an impassioned closing statement (during which he looked excedingly scrumptious), McConaughey's character says, "And until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices."
Well, I thought he just said "Justice will never be blind," but that's what the Internet Move Database is for.
Hmph.
Anyway, my completely inaccurate rendering of the script brings up an important question: Should judges rule only according to what is written in the law, or is there room for their own interpretation? Now a synonym for interpretion is opinion, and what does opinion rely on? Judgement. Now, ask the question again: Is there room for their own judgement? Well of course, moron. That's what judges do: they judge.
So: How can you ask a judge to judge without using his judgement? (Other than by speaking v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, of course.)
And since the law was made by men, and is in no way divine or incontrovertible or even "right" by any standards other than whether it stands the test of time as a just law, wouldn't slavish obedience to the law only be allegiance to another man's opinion? Therefore, wouldn't it be more important for a justice to apply his own judgement to the situation, taking into account the wisdom of the law as well as historical developments? How can you deny him this crucial tool of judicial scrutiny?
The people who want to follow the Constitution down to the letter are like the people who literally believe that God created the Earth in seven days or believe that you should stone your neighbor if his oxen encroach upon your cornfield, or whatever outdated advice people always point to in the Bible when they're making points like this. You know what I'm talking about. Of course in the Bible, at least you can make the case that it was written by god, and so you'd better not be f*cking around with it. But who's to say that the Constitution is so cosmically right? Our founding fathers were wise, but not clairvoyant.
Basically, they should just follow the law if it leads to conclusions I agree with, and be given license to interpret it differently if it doesn't. Let's just set a standard, alright? People who disagree with me are WRONG.
There. Glad we got that straightened out.
"Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go."
--ADAM COHEN in an Op-Ed in yesterday's New York Times.
Word.
In matters of law, I often return to a landmark contribution to judicial theory: A Time to Kill (1996).
Matt McConaughey is so delicious.
Mm.
Anyway. During an impassioned closing statement (during which he looked excedingly scrumptious), McConaughey's character says, "And until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices."
Well, I thought he just said "Justice will never be blind," but that's what the Internet Move Database is for.
Hmph.
Anyway, my completely inaccurate rendering of the script brings up an important question: Should judges rule only according to what is written in the law, or is there room for their own interpretation? Now a synonym for interpretion is opinion, and what does opinion rely on? Judgement. Now, ask the question again: Is there room for their own judgement? Well of course, moron. That's what judges do: they judge.
So: How can you ask a judge to judge without using his judgement? (Other than by speaking v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, of course.)
And since the law was made by men, and is in no way divine or incontrovertible or even "right" by any standards other than whether it stands the test of time as a just law, wouldn't slavish obedience to the law only be allegiance to another man's opinion? Therefore, wouldn't it be more important for a justice to apply his own judgement to the situation, taking into account the wisdom of the law as well as historical developments? How can you deny him this crucial tool of judicial scrutiny?
The people who want to follow the Constitution down to the letter are like the people who literally believe that God created the Earth in seven days or believe that you should stone your neighbor if his oxen encroach upon your cornfield, or whatever outdated advice people always point to in the Bible when they're making points like this. You know what I'm talking about. Of course in the Bible, at least you can make the case that it was written by god, and so you'd better not be f*cking around with it. But who's to say that the Constitution is so cosmically right? Our founding fathers were wise, but not clairvoyant.
Basically, they should just follow the law if it leads to conclusions I agree with, and be given license to interpret it differently if it doesn't. Let's just set a standard, alright? People who disagree with me are WRONG.
There. Glad we got that straightened out.
posted by R. at mercredi, avril 20, 2005
1 Comments:
Totally agree with you. Laws, like the Bible, were written with a lot of room for interpretation. If the law were written so precisely that the interpretation were unquestionable- anyone could be a judge. Judges are asked everyday to make decisions based on how THEY see things. It's their job.
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home