Monday, June 30, 2008
Worse (in outcome) than Zimbabwe
I genuinely don't understand this, it doesn't seem logical. It was Al Gore's fault this guy brought down an indefensible judgement, because he asked the courts to intervene? He should have conceded defeat in the face of probable illegality like a previous election loser? If I was mugged in the street and asked for a cop to help, it would be my fault if he awarded the criminal my wallet? And what does textualism have to do with this case anyway? Lawyers irritate me, they seem too much like practicing philosophers, revelling in distorting the law into a caricature of basic ethics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
And what does textualism have to do with this case anyway?
Nothing - it's background on Scalia.
revelling in distorting the law into a caricature of basic ethics.
I disagree with this. There are judges who stick as closely as possible to the letter of the law, and occasionally these judgements are unpopular and should result in Parliament legislating accordingly.
There are those who interpret the law loosely to match the outcomes that they want, based on their view of where society is today.
I don't know of any judges who loosely interpret the law to give deliberately perverse decisions.
I don't know of any judges who loosely interpret the law to give deliberately perverse decisions.
This, Dave is the one and only reason I regret not getting a law degree. One day, I could have been such a judge ..... ah, well.
Oh how I could rant about this!
But I wont, save to say:
1. I agree, Scalia J is raving. This article is terrible. It is disgusting he is in the majority.
2. The separation of powers between the legislative and judicial wings of government is what ensures checks and balances. When judges come out with this crap it totally undermines their perceived credibility to make unbiased decisions in political cases.
3. Dave, textualism and sticking to the "black letter law" can distort the law just as much as more contentious "creative" legal reasoning methods. Hell, look at the Work Choices Case which has maimed the constitution while purporting to literally interpret it.
4. Fitz dear, stick to maths.
5. Scalia J did get one thing right:
"If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don't go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn't produce anything."
Is now a good time to announce that I am seriously considering quitting my job next year to do honours in philosophy?
And to finish on a happy legal note. Read this case. It rocks.
Ok, so I ranted.
Post a Comment