Do you think about this stuff before you type or is it like a ouija board?

(03-23-2017 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  For the life of me I cannot understand why people have higher regard for laws than they do for men.

I disagree with your assertion that a separation of powers puts the law in front of men... I believe separation of powers, a strict separation, protects men from bad laws.

(03-23-2017 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  For the life of me I cannot understand why people have higher regard for laws than they do for men.

Didn't Roe v Wade create an implicit law?

(03-23-2017 10:33 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  For the life of me I cannot understand why people have higher regard for laws than they do for men.

Didn't Roe v Wade create an implicit law?

No...

It was a flawed ruling but it did not create law. It merely pointed at the constitution and said "this law here is bigger"..

IOW Roe did not create law, it struck down law, the state laws restricting abortion.

It created the legal fairytale of "penumbras and emanations"...was the only way to get to the result they wanted to reach.

(03-23-2017 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 01:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree. Frankin IS making an emotional appeal and that may not be much but the way that Gorsuch is responding illustrates that he is being disingenuous. To say that he doesn't know how he would respond in that situation is ridiculous.
It does however speak to the role of the judge issue. If a judge was there simply to interpret the law, we wouldn't real need judges. So long as the law is clear, would good are they.
I contend however that judges are there precisely to make a judgement call on a case by case basis. After all, our country shouldn't be a one size fits all society. Especially when you consider the increasing diversity of culture and socioeconomic status.
A judge is a judge because they are they to judge. Not interpret.

So you disagree with the concept of rule of law?

To some extent yes. The laws were made for man, not man for the laws.
For the life of me I cannot understand why people have higher regard for laws than they do for men.

Simple. In order for any society to function in a reasonable and orderly manner, there must be some predictability regarding the impacts of specific actions. You can't have action A producing consequence B when this judge hears the case, but a different consequence C when a different judge hears the same case. Our economy, and in fact all human relationships depend upon some degree of consistency in the application of law, which is not possible when judges get to decide cases based upon how they feel rather than what the law provides. And if you want to speak of "unfair," that would be the most unfair result of all.