"First, existential law means, instead of follow mythical legal logic, at the very root, law is what the powerful say it is.
"That would be considered existential as the law is really individual subjective reality at its core and not some objective logic."
Once again, to quote Mr. Pope, "a little learning is a dangeorus thing."
As I understand the term "existential law", it does not mean "law is what the powerful say it is." Rather, it is the simple acknowledgement that legal reasoning or the implementation of justice cannot be scientific, and is inevitably and essentially value-laden or ideological.
Let's try this a different way. Perhaps you could try just coming right out and saying what you think to be dangerous to society about our legal system as it exists, how you would propose changing it, and to what ends.
And I don't mean rattling off examples of decisions you don't like. I mean the system. Whaddaya say?
"Look at all the 5/4 decisions.
"The perfect example is when the supreme court decided the 2000 election. They did so (stopped the vote) just as the vote was within 100 votes of going into Gore's favor."
First, the court ruled 7-2 that the recounts violated due process protections in the US Constitution. The 5-4 decision was with regard to the remedy. The 2 vote difference was attributable to justices who wanted the Florida Supreme Court to design a remedy to the flawed recount process, but the other five believed that would be asking the state court to make law (as opposed to interpreting and ruling upon it), which is the sole province of the legislature.
Second, as Tim already demonstrated, "the vote" was never in Gore's favor and never would have been. Absent tamerping, falsification, or manipulation, of course.
In any case, the justices certainly didn't "stop the vote". The vote stopped when the polls closed on election day.
As for the rest, you read too many left-wingnut blogs. |
