Chief Justice Roberts Sold Out the Constitution for Less Than Wales | Cato @ Liberty
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/chief-justice-roberts-sold-out-the-constitution-for-less-than-wales/ ..."That’s why it’s so important that courts be independent and free from political pressure. Particularly with regard to major controversies that polarize the nation, courts — and especially the Supreme Court — need their reputation for dispassionate and independent legal reasoning so that their often unpopular opinions are followed and respected, rather than fomenting resistance and revolution."...
RRD:Shapiro makes a very good point lost on (or more likely evaded by) by legal "realists"(or more accurately Legal Fantasists).
If the court does not stand for the law,then it stands for nothing,it is nothing,has no role,and we need no more follow its rulings than the whims of the crips or the bloods.
Why? Because those rulings are illegal.
This point was also made some time ago by Robert Tracinski,ironically enough during Roberts' confirmation hearings. If the law is wrong it may be changed.
If it unclear reasonable people may disagree on its meaning. But if the law is to be replaced by feelings(as that alleged law professor Obama wants it to be) then law is replaced by dictatorial whims.
But we must obey the law for fear of statutory punishment?
Must we? It is a mistake to believe that people comply with laws for fear of punishment alone. Any police officer can tell you that. There are people who are of spotless character,who have the utmost respect for the law and for the police,who will lie their heads off,brillantly,flawlessly,without batting a eye to protect someone they love (like a child). Do you actually believe that if a mother lies to protect her son, that she would not do so,if only you increased the penalty for lying? Now if a mother would not care about being imprisoned,so long as she protected her child,why then do you expect people who regard a law as evil, to comply with it,if they believe that the case was not even decided based on law,but on the whim of a Judge?
One can respect the principle of the rule of law,but who feels the need to respect the rule of whims? Have you heard of prohibition?
Have you heard of the Fugitive slave act?
Obamacare falls in between the two. "But the court must not be concerned with what people think it,must be concerned with the law."
Exactly. But then Roberts(alleged) rationale goes up in smoke. If you believe that Obamacare is constitutional uphold it. If it is unconstitutional strike it down. But non-legal arguments have no place at a small claims court, much less the Supreme Court.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/chief-justice-roberts-sold-out-the-constitution-for-less-than-wales/ ..."That’s why it’s so important that courts be independent and free from political pressure. Particularly with regard to major controversies that polarize the nation, courts — and especially the Supreme Court — need their reputation for dispassionate and independent legal reasoning so that their often unpopular opinions are followed and respected, rather than fomenting resistance and revolution."...
RRD:Shapiro makes a very good point lost on (or more likely evaded by) by legal "realists"(or more accurately Legal Fantasists).
If the court does not stand for the law,then it stands for nothing,it is nothing,has no role,and we need no more follow its rulings than the whims of the crips or the bloods.
Why? Because those rulings are illegal.
This point was also made some time ago by Robert Tracinski,ironically enough during Roberts' confirmation hearings. If the law is wrong it may be changed.
If it unclear reasonable people may disagree on its meaning. But if the law is to be replaced by feelings(as that alleged law professor Obama wants it to be) then law is replaced by dictatorial whims.
But we must obey the law for fear of statutory punishment?
Must we? It is a mistake to believe that people comply with laws for fear of punishment alone. Any police officer can tell you that. There are people who are of spotless character,who have the utmost respect for the law and for the police,who will lie their heads off,brillantly,flawlessly,without batting a eye to protect someone they love (like a child). Do you actually believe that if a mother lies to protect her son, that she would not do so,if only you increased the penalty for lying? Now if a mother would not care about being imprisoned,so long as she protected her child,why then do you expect people who regard a law as evil, to comply with it,if they believe that the case was not even decided based on law,but on the whim of a Judge?
One can respect the principle of the rule of law,but who feels the need to respect the rule of whims? Have you heard of prohibition?
Have you heard of the Fugitive slave act?
Obamacare falls in between the two. "But the court must not be concerned with what people think it,must be concerned with the law."
Exactly. But then Roberts(alleged) rationale goes up in smoke. If you believe that Obamacare is constitutional uphold it. If it is unconstitutional strike it down. But non-legal arguments have no place at a small claims court, much less the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment