Replies

It's what we call the rule of law, combined with divided powers. We used to teach it in the schools...

You were taught to worship the law in schools? Figures.

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? Perhaps it isn't something you need to get down on your knees to worship. It is a decent system in general, but it is not perfect and in order to function properly it requires the people who operate it to think!!!

One thing that isn't taught in schools is how to use good reasoning and judgment. Perhaps that is why so many people ignore it. It is easier to act like a computer than to think critically.

I was getting the distinct impression this kid was acting like one of those critters in Metal Hurlant ~ where people disintegrated into little more than sex organs.

An honor student really should be able to imagine himself as something a tad beyond that.

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.