SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (2886)7/2/2003 12:56:02 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) of 793808
 
This is clear and unequivocal and places Justice Thomas squarely in a philosophical tradition that begins with Kant's insistence that questions of justice turn only on abstract considerations of what is right rather than on the calculation of (someone's) preferred outcomes.

THAT nails what is so unnerving about the Michigan case and Lawrence v. Texas. It is deciding from desired outcomes, instead of established principles of law. Legislating OUGHT from the bench instead of deciding IS from the bench.

The job of the judiciary is to rule based upon what is law, not what it believes law should be. The latter is the role of the legislature. Some don't get the distinction, apparently. :/

Derek
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News