# No "Right" Without a Corresponding Legal Remedy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350 "2004-09-21T17:06:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/41 "2004-09-22T16:57:43Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > And perhaps you should delve into at least a token attempt to interpret my sarcasm before you go shooting your mouth off. I’m not talking about judicial rights creation. I’m saying that the entire notion of turning this into an issue of “states’ rights” when thousands of people are being grievously mistreated is an offensive attempt to obfuscate the issue and justify the surpression, mockery, and humiliation of human beings. I noted your sarcasm in the very first sentence of my post, and I addressed your point re state’s rights later on in my reply to you. My point in noting _Dred Scott_ and other cases was to raise the point, entirely germane to this discussion, that simply allowing the judiciary to find “rights” upon no basis other than their particular worldview is, to put it mildly, problematic. Anything can be justified as a “right,” even slavery – as it has. > [@SolGrundy](#): > > But still, apparently I have to repeat what I’ve said countless times before. _Dred Scott_ does not invalidate the entire concept of the judicial branch of the United States. I never said it did. I did say it illustrates the problem with standardless bases of judicial review such as “substantive” due process. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. > [@SolGrundy](#): > > It is hypocritical to claim that same-sex marriage proponents only cite the examples of judicial legislation that suit their purposes, and then do the same thing yourself to somehow “prove” that it doesn’t always work. Courts are different than legislative bodies. Courts are supposedly interpretive bodies, and are supposed to be adhering to standards when they interpret a given text. They are supposedly not exercising a will of their own, but only giving life to the documents they are charged with discovering. Consistency is the hallmark of proper juridprudence. That being the case, it is entirely on the shoulders of proponents of things like “substantive” due process to distinguish those cases they dislike from those they wish to promote. He who says _Lawrence_ must also say _Lochner_. Legislatures are different; by design, they exercise authorship. Inconsistency is not only acceptable in the legislative sphere, it is often necessary and sometimes even desireable. Lawmakers, being untied to precedent and the rigors of judicial reasoning, are free to allow gut instinct to guide them. > [@SolGrundy](#): > > No, it doesn’t always work. No single branch of government always makes the right decision. That is why the Constitution calls for three, and checks and balances between each. The system of checks and balances presupposes a judiciary that limits its powers to mere interpretation. When the judiciary overreaches, that system breaks down, and there is no effective check to stop them – amending the constitution is too unwieldy, and even if it weren’t, since the judiciary is tasked with interpreting any amendment the fox is left guarding the henhouse. > [@SolGrundy](#): > > We are supposed to believe that _Dred Scott_ proves the fact that judicial legislation is an abhorrent concept, and yet accept that the rulings in Missouri and Louisiana are “the right way” to do things, simply because they’re different? How does that work, exactly? Not because they’re different, but because our government is premised on legitimacy being derived from the consent of the governed. Marriage is not an issue addressed in the federal constitution, the document encapsulating the mechanisms of government the governed have consented to. Ergo, it would be illegitimate for a federal court to reverse Missouri and Lousiana. Similarly, that same constitution effectively reserves marriage to the states by not explicitly giving the federal government authority over that area. Ergo, it would be illegitimate for Congress to interfere by passing statutes “defending” marriage (I’m looking at you, DOMA) > [@SolGrundy](#): > > Why is it a horrifying concept to hang our future on the benevolence of a few people in court at any given time, but it’s perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to hang their future and their happiness on the benevolence of people who hate them? When does this stop being an academic legal discussion? When, exactly, are we allowed to point out that what is going on in Missouri and Louisiana is _wrong_? An action can be both morally wrong and perfectly constitutional. I agree that Missouri and Lousiana are acting immorally. That doesn’t mean they are violating anyone’s rights in anything but the rhetorical sense. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/42 "2004-09-22T17:06:18Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Because the results sucked ass. It ain’t that hard to figure out, is it? So, the ends justify the means? How do you feel about the exclusionary rule? Not to mention the fact that I could make a pretty good case economics-wise that _Lochner_ did not in fact “suck ass.” > [@minty green](#): > > Yes. So? You prefer to hang your future on an empty piece of paper? I don’t consider the Constitution an “empty piece of paper.” Nor do I think the judiciary unnecessary. Intepretation of the text is a valid and necessary governmental function. I just don’t think they should make shit up on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/43 "2004-09-22T17:58:12Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > My friend, the text **has** to be interpreted as it stands. Picking at random from the established text: > [ul][li]"…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution…" Who decides what’s necessary and proper?[/li][li]“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Oh, really? What does this mean?[/li][li]“The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Who decides what’s “unreasonable”?[/li][li]"…nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" So what does “due process” mean? [/li][li]"…nor shall public property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Who decides what compensation is “just”?[/li][li]“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Who decides what’s speedy and what’s public?[/li][li]“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Who decides what’s excessive, and what’s cruel and unusual?[/li][li]“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Yeah, right! May I suggest that you’re in violation of this provision simply by making the points you have in this and the Louisiana-amendment debate? And if you say I’m wrong in that allegation, who in the world would decide?[/li][li]Last, but far from least: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That, sir, is a provision of the Constitution. It must actually mean something. It has enough generalized statements in it to keep us going with Great Debates for the next ten years at minimum. Who decides what it means, and how it’s to be applied? [/ul][/li] > And, as people have pointed out innumerable times on this board, the entire point of having Constitutional protection of rights is to **defend** the right of a given individual or minority group **against** the will of the majority. > > A right which is valid only when the majority agrees that it’s cool that you exercise it, is no “right” at all – but a privilege revocable on the whim of the _mobile vulgus_. All these are perfectly valid points. But they do not add up to anything like, “The Constitution means anything at all and nothing in particular”. Nor does it establish the proposition “decisions that contradict the plain sense of the Constitution do not contradict the plain sense of the Constitution”. The undoubted fact that there is a gray area does not mean that black is white. I will ask what I asked before - what specific limit exists on the power of the Supreme Court that cannot be “interpreted” away? What check exists on the power of the Court to interpret the Second Amendment to say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed anytime the government feels like it”? Or **anything else at all**? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/44 "2004-09-22T18:15:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > All these are perfectly valid points. But they do not add up to anything like, “The Constitution means anything at all and nothing in particular”. Nor does it establish the proposition “decisions that contradict the plain sense of the Constitution do not contradict the plain sense of the Constitution”. You know, the only people I’ve seen saying anything like this are rejects from Wizard of Oz remakes which were created by strict constructionists to represent their opponents’ views. I agree with you and **Dewey** that there are limits; we simply disagree on how to identify them. > [@](#): > > The undoubted fact that there is a gray area does not mean that black is white. If you wonder at my irateness at your post a few days ago, this sort of wisecrack is precisely why I was angered. There’s an underlying presumption in Great Debates that “my opponent is a level-headed and worthwhile person with ethical values, who is advancing what seems to him like a cogent proposition founded in the merits of the situation, but with which I disagree.” When we cross that line and begin imputing absurdities to our opposition, we cease to discourse intelligently, and begin to play “Dueling Monologues.” And I had thought you above that sort of thing – which is why it’s been so interesting to debate with you in the past. > [@](#): > > I will ask what I asked before - what specific limit exists on the power of the Supreme Court that cannot be “interpreted” away? What check exists on the power of the Court to interpret the Second Amendment to say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed anytime the government feels like it”? Or **anything else at all**? The text of the document, of course. There is nothing in the world that can make “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed” mean “…except this one.” But identifying a “privilege or immunity” that is not immediately obvious to you by the implications of other clauses in the law, the generalized statements I pointed out earlier, and the precedents set by previous decisions, is not pulling a right out of the esteemed Justices’ asses – it’s attempting to figure out precisely what the validity of a claimed right may or may not be, given the circumstances surrounding the claim and those considerations. Examine Mr. Kennedy’s careful construction of the reasons underlying why he identified a “right of autonomy in personal relationships” in _Lawrence_ – it’s one of the finest pieces of judicial logic I’ve seen since Mr. Marshall told Mr. Marbury he couldn’t get his J.P. commission. Now, “come, let us reason together.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/45 "2004-09-22T18:45:53Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The text of the document, of course. The problem, of course, **Poly** , is that you _don’t_ see the text as a meaningful limit. If you can’t find what you want in an actual provision of the constitution, you are more than willing to reach for “substantive” due process – essentially allowing those two words to mean anything and everything, rendering the idea of the text as a limit on judicial power an absurdity. Due process is not, and should not be, a rorschach test. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/46 "2004-09-22T19:55:37Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The problem, of course, **Poly** , is that you _don’t_ see the text as a meaningful limit. If you can’t find what you want in an actual provision of the constitution, you are more than willing to reach for “substantive” due process – essentially allowing those two words to mean anything and everything, rendering the idea of the text as a limit on judicial power an absurdity. > > Due process is not, and should not be, a rorschach test. In the same near-snide tone, **Dewey** , I can point out that your system of interpretation would permit states to take any liberties they like with individuals’ perceived and explicitly defined rights, so long as the governmental agencies involved are prepared to ensure that they cross every T and dot every I as regards “procedural” due process. I do see limits implicit in the broad phrasing of the text; you just don’t view it in the way I do. And unless we need to take it to the Pit, that’s probably where it needs to be left – unfortunately – since we do not seem to be communicating at all. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/47 "2004-09-22T20:36:52Z")
Let me see if I’m understanding the thrust of this thread. This is a “facts on the ground” or “brass tacks” type of thread. All the rhetoric of “rights” boils down to hot air when you get down to the base facts. A right without a remedy can not be freely exercised and is therefore not worth the paper it is written on. Homosexuals who are denied marriage licenses on basis of the gender of their co-applicant have no remedy to force the state to issue the license. Therefore when the dust settles, they have no marriage license and nothing they can say will change that. Is that about it? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/48 "2004-09-22T20:41:46Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > So, the ends justify the means? Sometimes, sure. Sometimes, the means justify the end. And in pretty much every situation, you have to consider both the means and the ends. > [@](#): > > Not to mention the fact that I could make a pretty good case economics-wise that _Lochner_ did not in fact “suck ass.” So could I, actually. I’ve got a pretty serious libertarian streak when it comes to economic matters. But Lochner clearly sucked when judged against the will of the people, so I’ll stand on the assessment. > [@](#): > > I don’t consider the Constitution an “empty piece of paper.” Nor do I think the judiciary unnecessary. Intepretation of the text is a valid and necessary governmental function. I just don’t think they should make shit up on their own. They don’t. They make it up based on the text of the Constitution. My point is that it takes both a reader and a text to yield meaning. One without the other doesn’t get you anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/49 "2004-09-22T22:18:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. I am sorry if my language about plucking rights out of the ether offended you, although I must point out that you might expect a certain amount of harsh rejoinder when your previous post suggested that I endorsed slavery and the use of the word “nigger.” But I recognize that emotions run high here, and that you are genuinely pained that society is not prepared to recognize your loving and committed relationship with the word “marriage.” But awareness of your pain does not mean that I am prepared to call for an end to the basic principles of self-governance that are at the heart of the system that rules our government. I don’t have time to give a full response now, but this bears responding to immediately: my post was _not_ suggesting that you are a racist for acknowledging that at one point in history people had the right to own other people. That is absurd, which was my whole point. I have absolutely no reason to believe you’re racist, and for that matter, I have no reason to believe you’re homophobic. What I was trying to demonstrate was that for the institution of slavery to persist for so long, people had to distance themselves from the core moral issue. When I hear people suggesting that same-sex marriage is a new concept, or it’s unrealistic to expect it, or it’s a made-up “right,” or it’s fundamentally different than heterosexual marriage, I have to wonder: what is it they _see_, exactly, when they see me hugging and kissing my boyfriend? Are they repulsed by it? Or do they find it comical? Is it just completely alien to them? Are we faking it? Is it just some ridiculous novelty, or a phase that will pass? Or is it just a sinful, abhorrent act that they can’t stand to watch? Would they rather just not think about it? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/50 "2004-09-23T00:26:47Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > In the same near-snide tone, **Dewey** , I can point out that your system of interpretation would permit states to take any liberties they like with individuals’ perceived and explicitly defined rights, so long as the governmental agencies involved are prepared to ensure that they cross every T and dot every I as regards “procedural” due process. Actually, no, you can’t say that, in a snide or any other tone. If a right is “explicitly defined” in the text of the constitution or elswhere (federal statute, state constitution, state law, etc), then my system of interpretation most certainly does _not_ allow the states to “take any liberties they like” with those rights. A belief that “substantive” due process is a contradiction in terms does not mean I also believe that the other provisions of the constitution should fail to be enforced. > [@Polycarp](#): > > I do see limits implicit in the broad phrasing of the text; you just don’t view it in the way I do. And unless we need to take it to the Pit, that’s probably where it needs to be left – unfortunately – since we do not seem to be communicating at all. And yet you never see fit to describe exactly what those limits are in any concrete, meaningful fashion. If pointing up a very real shortcoming of your stated view is pit-worthy, so be it: I would take your recourse to a forum devoted to profane personal insults as a demonstration of the weakness of your point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/51 "2004-09-23T00:34:50Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Sometimes, sure. Sometimes, the means justify the end. And in pretty much every situation, you have to consider both the means and the ends. Suffice it to say I categorically reject a worldview that allows the judiciary to do whatever they want so long as their own internal moral compasses tell them an issue is of special importance. That a dictator is benevolent doesn’t change the fact that he is a dictator. > [@minty green](#): > > So could I, actually. I’ve got a pretty serious libertarian streak when it comes to economic matters. But Lochner clearly sucked when judged against the will of the people, so I’ll stand on the assessment. “Clearly?” You’re kidding, right? You surely don’t think that to be fundamentally self-evident to everyone, right? > [@minty green](#): > > They don’t. They make it up based on the text of the Constitution. My point is that it takes both a reader and a text to yield meaning. One without the other doesn’t get you anywhere. When two slender words are allowed to mean anything and everything, the judiciary is no longer basing their decision on the text of the Constitution. Convenient redefinition of terms doesn’t change the substance of what the judiciary is doing when it relies on “substantive” due process. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/52 "2004-09-23T00:55:18Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Suffice it to say I categorically reject a worldview that allows the judiciary to do whatever they want so long as their own internal moral compasses tell them an issue is of special importance. That a dictator is benevolent doesn’t change the fact that he is a dictator. On the converse side, why should we be subject to the arbitrary irrational whims of the majority just because they say so? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/53 "2004-09-23T01:37:01Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > On the converse side, why should we be subject to the arbitrary irrational whims of the majority just because they say so? Because that is the principle upon which our government is founded: self-governance. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/54 "2004-09-23T01:40:03Z")
What **Bricker** said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/55 "2004-09-23T01:44:43Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > What **Bricker** said. Unless Mom has some 'fessing up to do, we were NOT separated at birth. 🙂 Just thought I should point that out. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/56 "2004-09-23T02:21:55Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Suffice it to say I categorically reject a worldview that allows the judiciary to do whatever they want so long as their own internal moral compasses tell them an issue is of special importance. Me too. My point, in case you missed it, was that it takes _both_ the judiciary and the law. > [@](#): > > “Clearly?” You’re kidding, right? You surely don’t think that to be fundamentally self-evident to everyone, right? I concede that I do not have public opinion polling data from the early 20th century on the precise point that working hour restrictions were favored by a majority of the public. My sense is that such reforms were, historically speaking, widely popular. If you have evidence that it is not historically true, and that the public really couldn’t stand the thought of placing limits on working hours, and that the New York (?) legislature was stomping on the will of the people in that matter, I will be happy to consider your evidence. > [@](#): > > When two slender words are allowed to mean anything and everything, the judiciary is no longer basing their decision on the text of the Constitution. Convenient redefinition of terms doesn’t change the substance of what the judiciary is doing when it relies on “substantive” due process. Ah, yes. And yet those “two slender words” must mean _something_. That you and I disagree over what they mean hardly leads to the conclusion that your reading is blessed by the text and mine is created by mere whimsy. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/57 "2004-09-23T02:25:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because that is the principle upon which our government is founded: self-governance. Goodness, and here I was laboring under the mistaken belief that there were any number of massively important barriers between the populace, those who govern it, and unfettered power. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/58 "2004-09-23T02:29:17Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Me too. My point, in case you missed it, was that it takes _both_ the judiciary and the law. In other words, means are important, unless a judge feels the end is really, really important, in which case he can ignore those means entirely. Forgive me if I’m unpersuaded. > [@minty green](#): > > I concede that I do not have public opinion polling data from the early 20th century on the precise point that working hour restrictions were favored by a majority of the public. My sense is that such reforms were, historically speaking, widely popular. If you have evidence that it is not historically true, and that the public really couldn’t stand the thought of placing limits on working hours, and that the New York (?) legislature was stomping on the will of the people in that matter, I will be happy to consider your evidence. So is it your contention that widespread public demand for a particular thing is what makes a contrary decision “clearly suck-ass”? Do you really want to march down that road? > [@minty green](#): > > Ah, yes. And yet those “two slender words” must mean _something_. That you and I disagree over what they mean hardly leads to the conclusion that your reading is blessed by the text and mine is created by mere whimsy. Yes, they must mean something. But the sheer breadth of things to which they’ve been applied makes it pretty goddamned clear that the judiciary isn’t taking a principled understanding of those two words and applying them to cases as they arise. Quite the contrary: the words are being redefined to suit the whims of the judiciary. An infinitely malleable word is a meaningless word. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/59 "2004-09-23T02:36:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because that is the principle upon which our government is founded: self-governance. Unless you’re a faggot. Then it’s acceptable for everyone else to tell you how to live your life. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350/60 "2004-09-23T03:00:33Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > In other words, means are important, unless a judge feels the end is really, really important, in which case he can ignore those means entirely. Forgive me if I’m unpersuaded. You should be unpersuaded, given that I did not even remotely attempt to make such a claim. Try the word with me: _Both_. As in, “both” ends and means are important. “Both” ends and means must be considered. “Both” chocolate and peanut butter are necessary to make a satisfying candy snack. See, it isn’t that hard, is it? > [@](#): > > So is it your contention that widespread public demand for a particular thing is what makes a contrary decision “clearly suck-ass”? One factor, among others. And hey, feel free to argue that I was wrong in claiming that the outcome of _Dred Scott_ licked big sweaty rhinoceros balls. Or just keep pounidng away at labor laws to no particular purpose or effect. > [@](#): > > Yes, they must mean something. But the sheer breadth of things to which they’ve been applied makes it pretty goddamned clear that the judiciary isn’t taking a principled understanding of those two words and applying them to cases as they arise. Quite the contrary: the words are being redefined to suit the whims of the judiciary. An infinitely malleable word is a meaningless word. An empty word is also a meaningless word. And yet, somewhere between empty and infinitely malleable lies a sane and reasonable reading of the words at issue. Me, I look at questions like whether parents should be able to teach their kids in foreign languages and whether unmarried adults can screw themselves silly, and I think hey, that sounds like a sane and reasonable reading. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-right-without-a-corresponding-legal-remedy/265350.md?page=4)