Replies

Before understanding law one must understand ethics and justice. The law is only a crude approximation of this. And this "rule of law" people keep going on about is nothing more than the arbitrary enforcement of the crude approximation of ethics and justice. Doesn't sound so pretty or noble in those terms does it?

You debate like a lib...that is, you misstate your opponent's argument, rather than addressing it. It's adolescent in nature...

I agree that "justice" and "ethics" are great ideals, except...we as a society haven't agreed upon what "justice" means, and "ethics" is used less and less as a basis in law.

You accuse me of "worshipping" the law...I think you are incredibly naive about judges. That's why I (with good company) worry more about arbitrary actions from judges than legislatures.

I recognize the law is at best an imperfect instrument for justice. That's why I support original intent, because I fear philosopher/king judges more than elected legislators. It's not perfect by definition, but IMO less flawed than judicial activism. Right or not, this ruling has gutted this law...the new law will be applied retroactively, though the state legislature pointedly did not do so.

Results based judicial rulings are lib ideals, not conservative.

BTW, I disagree with your viewpoint on the law itself...I believe it's a totally appropriate use of law, and I would support it. The lame rationalizations I've heard makes advocates sound like Clinton supporters, circa 1999-2000.

It appears Clinton has won the final victory, even among so-called conservatives.

You accuse me of "worshipping" the law...I think you are incredibly naive about judges. That's why I (with good company) worry more about arbitrary actions from judges than legislatures.

So you plan to take the judgment out of a judge. Make one written system that is enforced evenly regardless of the situation because it is the rule of law. The justification: nothing less than that we should follow the rule of law because it is the rule of law. That there is law worship. Nowhere have you addressed the concept of justice. Perhaps you are arguing that in our modern society justice has nothing to do with the rule of law.

You debate like a lib...that is, you misstate your opponent's argument, rather than addressing it. It's adolescent in nature...
The lame rationalizations I've heard makes advocates sound like Clinton supporters, circa 1999-2000
It appears Clinton has won the final victory, even among so-called conservatives.

Wow! I have always felt that those who throw around personal insults and who try to demean their opponents do so because they are losing a rational debate. Do you expect me to be intimidated by your insults? Do you expect me to shut up because you do not think I have the conservative credentials?