Should The Federal Judiciary Be Replaced By Judicial Computer Software?

The Free Republic ^ | March 10, 2003 | aas

[an amused spectator]

Democrats in the United States Senate have put forward a new theory: The American people should know how a federal judge is going to rule on a particular legal question even before he or she sees that particular case.

After picking my jaw up off the floor, and pondering the question for a while, it struck me: why do we even need judges, if we already know how they're going to rule on an issue beforehand? We could just create Federal Judicial Software® to remove the burden from our over-taxed federal legal system. Plug the case into the computer, and it spits out a judicial solution. Stroke of the key, law of the land - kinda cool.

We would be assured that the software is non-partisan [hire Libertarian programmers (**grin**)], and the system would not be susceptible to the bribery and preferential treatment currently endemic to it at the present time.

Lawyers would NOT be allowed to participate in the programming - it would be a strictly logic-based software solution. ;-)

[an amused spectator]

I got some of this idea from Nat Hentoff (Estrada and the future of the judiciary, Nat Hentoff/Washington Times March 10, 2003) and from other FR article sources. Freeper Stand Watch Listen has a great Estrada compilation on the above thread, which I'll add to this one in a while.

[ShadowAce]

Hey--I'll sign on to that project. :)

[an amused spectator]

Shall we deal MS out of the solution? ;-)

[ShadowAce]

Yeah--I would think they're a little biased. :)

[AndyTheBear]

The "living constitution" types in the Legislator want the Judiciary to be a rubber stamp to Leftist dogma. This is very dangerous, as the Judiciary are supposed to protect us from abuses of our rights by the Legislator. The concept that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights seens intolerable to the Left, who lust after a world where they can bestow and deny rights to serve their evolving concept of fairness. Inevitably such approaches always evolve into a kind of toltalarionsim--whether or not it is called a "democracy".

[an amused spectator]

Right. The very fact that Estrada is NOT a rubber stamp drives them nuts.

[Cicero]

The software wouldn't need to be very complicated, if the Democrats had their way. Just a few general rules:

Democrats: innocent.
Republicans: guilty.
Abortion: yes.
School prayer: no.
Perversion: yes.
Marriage: no.

The could add a few more such items to the upgrades.

[an amused spectator]

LOL! Hopefully, it would take them a few releases to put in a subroutine to deal with us. :-)

[FreeLibertarian]

We would be assured that the software is non-partisan [hire Libertarian programmers (**grin**)], and the system would not be susceptible to the bribery and preferential treatment currently endemic to it at the present time.

Sign me up!! I'll even cut my rates!

[chickenlips]

Let's make sure we do it right. We can outsource the software development offshore just to make sure it doesn't create an IT job here either.

[ChewedGum]

I agree 100%. Our family enjoyed watching 'Foyle's War' which was a 4-part WW2-Era detective series on Masterpiece Theater. The episodes were fantastic, and did a great job integrating history with enjoyable mysteries. But the thing the struck me the most about the program and the Chief Detective, is that justice was served. It didn't matter what crime was done, or *Who* did it...Mr. Foyle did a fantastic job discerning intent and applying the appropriate remedy. With the complicated scenarios he faced, the computer would have been wrong about 80% of the time.

Gum

[an amused spectator]

This post is meant as mockery of the Democrats' position on the judiciary. You cannot secure justice from a system of left-wing ideologue puppets.

You can only ensure insanity.