Killing trees pursuing 'justice' (Interesting look at the left)

TownHall ^ | April 20, 2005 | Jan M. LaRue

[isaiah55version11_0]

I have a theory that bad judicial opinions generally require a whole lot of “explanation” that consumes much more paper. Consider the number of pages in the following opinions. To be fair, a few include one or more dissenting opinions, but the cause of the paper consumption is still the majority.

Dred Scott v. Sandford: Chief Justice Roger Taney wasted 175 pages explaining why “the [Negro] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Roe v. Wade: The Supreme Court used 50 pages to explain that a woman’s “right” to terminate the life of her unborn child is somewhere in the U.S. Constitution, although not specifically located.

Compassion in Dying v. Washington: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consumed 104 pages explaining that physician-assisted suicide is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court put it to death in 60 pages.

[isaiah55version11_0]

I came to a similar conclusion regarding the Left in general. Back when I had more time on my hands, I would read Free Republic just to get the other perspective and was amazed at how many pages they required to get their point across. The average seemed to be about 3 pages in small print to my recollection (not sure if it is still this way). When I went to Townhall or National Review on dealing with the same subject, it rarely took more than a page.

Perhaps truth simply does not require as many words to have an impact. ie Swiftboat Vets v. MoveOn.

Now there are Libs that can write short, to the point commentaries such as Dowd. But when your only point is ‘W’ is yucky, how many lines could one possibly take?

If anyone knows where I can find concise and well thought out liberal commentary please let me know and send a link. I won’t have my hopes up while waiting.

When all else fails, read the instructions (CCEL > Bibles and Commentaries)

[green iguana]

Back when I had more time on my hands, I would read Free Republic just to get the other perspective

8-o

I'm sure you meant 'New Republic'...

[elbucko]

This phenomenon was illustrated to me years ago by an Army JAG Major that I was TAD to at the SF Presidio. He would ask newly minted 2nd Lt. JAG lawyers to define; "Justice", in one sentence and the conditions for its necessity in another. He would give them a week. Some of them would even resort to asking a lowly "Buck Sergeant" like me to provide the answer.

Long story short, the Major's definition went something like this:

Justice: To comfort the innocent and punish the guilty, in that order.
Necessity: Only when a crime or inequity has been committed.

Ask a lawyer this question, few will be able to answer in this way. Many will protest that the definition is too easy. Ask them to explain. Most, if not all, can't.

[Mr. Mulliner]

There is something really true in this. Trouble is that it seems those who really need to understand that truth is simple and can be stated briefly are too busy gloating in their ability to understand the complex and ridiculing the simpletons in the red states.

I take comfort in this verse, though, which kind of gets at the same thing:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Cor. 1:20)

[isaiah55version11_0]

Wow. Great scripture. I'll be adding it to my memorize list.

The LITV version seems very appropriate for this article and the times.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where the scribe? Where the lawyer of this world? Did God not make the wisdom of this world foolish?

lawyer quite timely

Thanks, To God be the Glory

[expatpat]

Maybe it's just their laziness. Ben Franklin once wrote in one of his letters to friends that he apologized for the excessive length of the letter, but he hadn't had enogh time to write a shorter one.

[Mr. K]

dammmm that's good