Without knowing exactly what you're claiming here, these values are probably fairly universal.Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Without knowing exactly what you're claiming here, these values are probably fairly universal.
Look, no matter how much you’d like to deny this, the western civilization has based itself on the laws of Moses, which was summarized by Jesus as love God and love one another.
Of course the ‘love God’ part could end up being twisted by some to cause persecutions so now we mostly just focus on the love one another part and made sure we allow people the freedom to worship freely.
So to answer your question, yes, it is fairly universal as well, but the Christian influence on the west should be pretty clear.
For a Supreme Court judge to deliver a good and fair judgment, he or she should be able to make both Jesus and the people happy. Not to just follow the letter of the law... we all could interpret the same sentences differently anyway... how can we be sure our interpretation of the law is really right?
Best we could do is to hope that whatever we do is out of love for God and for other people. We do this right, our future will be bright, we do this wrong, we enter into the dark ages...
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; October 13th, 2020 at 04:54 PM.
But none of the silly stuff though right? Like clothing, haircuts, putting to death people who curse their parents ... basically only the stuff that makes sense without having to be told by Moses, right?
Perhaps this should be taken to the religion thread.
Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions about religion here (both that Christianity is what came up with those values vs. codifying already emerging values and that to be an effective judge means making Jesus happy is a prerequisite), definitely feels like it'd be better for the religion thread.
Suffice it to say, I don't agree that a judge having a faith means they have to make rulings that line up with that faith. Much like I don't think that owning a gun means you can't make fair second amendment rulings.
Last edited by Tom Servo; October 13th, 2020 at 06:23 PM.
Sorry, don’t mean to mix religion in this, but the discussion is relevant.
Jesus himself had been judged by the Pharisees for supposedly breaking God’s laws..., but of course pharisees’ interpretations were wrong. We need to try to figure out what is the spirit of the law rather than applying everything to the letter.
Plus, in the event of existing laws are unclear, what are judges to do? Pretend to be computers delivering syntax error judgements?
Anyway, point is I’m on the fence about judge Amy. She appears nice, but not sure if I trust her based on her words...
What was the vote in favour of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? 90-something to 2?
Would any nominee do anywhere near that well in the current climate?
if you took the crazy out of Amy, she'd probably score high marks. she's pretty favorable to business.
acket.
I know a lot of us, myself included, thought that the debate likely didn't change many minds and hoped that Biden had done better. Turns out, at least I was off the mark.
Trump hasn’t recovered from tailspin set off by raucous debate performance, poll shows
Main gist is that for most people, polled before the debate with how they thought he'd do and then again after the debate with how they thought he did, Trump did really poorly, especially amongst right-leaning independents. Also that polling effects of debates are usually short-lived, but this is proving to be long-lasting, and his refusal to do a virtual debate on the 15th isn't helping him any.
I think at the end of the day, at most those conservatives not happy with Trump simply won't vote or go 3rd party like me?
Of the conservative friends of colleagues I know, they all know Trump sucks with lots of personal failings, but Trump is still better than whatever 'socialists' democrats put on the ballot. Less of the 2 evils continue to work well on both sides...
Those recent poll can help us feel good, but... seriously, I really thought Hillary had it in the bag with the pussy grabbing thing came out. Anything can still happen... the fat lady hasn't sung yet.
I'm dragging this from the religion thread because it has more to do with rule of law and also because seriously guys, religion thread? yuck!
Swervo says some judicial interpretation is based on poorly written laws... so, how does your perfectible union go about changing that? afaiu amendments are political tools for change... and codification works in a hierarchy, operational code has to comply with regulatory arrangements, which have to comply with constitutional rules or they get changed. if the poorly written code allows for abuse by a few actors with technical expertise, then it's considered a loophole and the law is only changed by pressure from interested parties.
but what happens if the law is just dysfunctional without the need of a particular knowledge?
acket.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote