In fact, most laws are morally neutral administrivia.
Can you cite a single law that does not advance a particular moral position?
Well, there’s the “order” part of “law and order”. The laws mandating that everyone drive on the right side of the road, for instance.
There is no particular moral value in driving on the right, but it is the law nonetheless. If you want to argue that laws about driving on the right advocate that people don’t get into car wrecks, then fine, but I still see them as different from laws against murder or prostitution.
Regards,
Shodan
Geez. I have to make all you people’s analogies for you?
Here’s the one you wanted to make:
Vanishingly few people would sell weapons to terrorists. Thus, sales of weapons in general can be allowed (while restricting sales to terrorists from this general rule, just as we restrict incest and would perhaps make an exception to the general rule for pregnancies caused thereby).
Hey, doesn’t sound so ridiculous when you actually make it parallel.
“Clearly” to you. But hey, as long as we take it as read that your opponents are all bigots, I guess you win!
And it’s a sad misconception that those of us on the liberal side can’t tell the difference between a conservative and the Religious Right. Equal Protection is not incompatible with conservatism. I did not mean to suggest it was. But it is seldom supported by the Religious Right. I don’t expect outraged conservatives; but the Religious Right isn’t happy about it.
Focus on the Family said, " “While this is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values, t is by no means a given that John Roberts’s personal views are reflected in his involvement in this case.” They’re not happy about it and are looking for a spin that allows them to hold their noses.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, initally labeled it a case of “aiding and abetting.”
Joseph Farrar of WorldNet daily said "I don’t know who makes me sicker – President Bush or the “conservatives” who continue to back him and his sell-out choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.
[snip]
He did his job well. But he didn’t serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint. "
From where I am seated, his volunteer actions and the fact that he showed interest in anything that was not totally right wing could bode well for the cause.
I do not throw my hat in with anyone until I am sure they have had a chance to step on their (johnson).
Besides, just because the FRC and Focus back him should be concern for alarm. Never, Never give the religious fascist a seat at the table. Next thing you know, they are declaring what a great cook they are!
This distinction is well-known in law. Acts are considered to be malo in se - wrong in and of themselves – or malum prohibitum, “wrong” only because the law forbids the action. The decision to depreciate rental properties is a morally neutral act: you do it, or not, because the law permits or forbids it. The sexual abuse of a child is wrong no matter what law exists addressing the issue.
I agree that it’s sad, but while it’s certainly not ubiquitous it does seem that there is such an inability in many cases, particularly on this message board.
I trust you don’t need me to produce half a dozen recent cites showing someone of liberal bent painting the right as generally intolerant to see that I have a point.
Thus, I feel that it is not a misconception.
However, I applaud the fact that you are not counted in the group with this failing.
I agree.
Yes I agree that it sucks that there are intolerant whack jobs out there, but, you have to admit that it’s kind of nice that the Prez would not nominate someone who pisses these kind of people off, no matter what else you think about him. Don’t you agree?
Perplexed. The way you worded that, seems to say “Isn’t it nice that the President nominated someone who doesn’t piss off intolerant whackos?”.
Emphasis added.
Count me as perplexed, too. Did you mean to say “not”?
Assuming, I think correctly, that the “not” is misplaced, then, yes. In fact, that’s why I started this thread. It is possible, and I’m even hopeful, that Bush has nominated someone who at least respects the 14th. It has brought me back from total dispair to only mostly dispairing.
With reference to the sidebar regarding conservatism vs. whackjobbery, I’d like to mention that I have recently read two recent books on the Supreme Court, and was intrigued by the difference in approach taken by the authors. Mme. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s The Majesty of the Law was an honest look at the evolution of the court in which she addressed judicial self-restraint, the value and limits of stare decisis, and human rights, with particular focus on women’s rights. It came across as a very level-headed approach to highly debatable subjects. I in particular recommend her chapter on Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to readers of all philosophical bents. On the other hand, Kenneth Starr’s First Among Equals was a partisan screed that would quite frankly embarrass the conservatives on this board. His approach was very much that which made Oliver Cromwell make his famous comment about being wrong.
Yep. I sure don’t see the point of rallying all the troops to stop a (surprisingly) responsible albeit conservative nomination from going through. What, you wanna roll the dice again, on the theory that this Prez can’t possibly come up with someone any worse? Roberts could be a long-term thorn in the side of liberal politics, but he sure looks like another John Paul Stevens or Byron White to me. Go play nice with the 'Pubbies, tell the Prez he’s done an admirable job of picking a nominee…do vet him first but don’t assume the outcome thereof… and mostly keep the ammunition available for the next vacancy, unless you think Rehnquist is going to be swearing in the US Prez in 2008.
But that’s the difference between between being a lawyer, an advocate for a client, and being an activist. The first requirement of a lawyer who takes on a client is to give the client the best possible representation.
In this case, the client was seeking to challenge a state law. Once you take on that client, the lawyer has to explore constitutional issues, trying to find a way to challenge the law. Even if you personally disagree with that approach, once you agreed to take the case you have to find the best possible argument for the client.
However, I have to say that different lawyers take different approaches to pro bono. Some will focus their pro bono on work or clients that they are sympathetic to; others will volunteer at a clinic and take whoever walks in the door; others still will do a mixture.
I agree that the fact that Mr. Roberts was involved in this case is interesting, but I’m not sure that it shows anything other than his commitment to pro bono work as a professional obligation.
Well, yes and no. Yes, it’s true that no-one was going to jail in the Romer case, but I’m not sure that I’d characterise the difference between civil and criminal pro bono as starkly as this.
We live in societies committed to the rule of law, including basic assumptions of equal treatment of citizens by the government (exactly what that assumption of equal treatment requires in particular cases is of course open to principled debate).
We also live in societies with elaborate legal systems that by and large require representation by counsel to have a realistic chance to make one’s case, whether in the civil or the criminal context.
In that framework, the fact that a particular client is not facing jail does not eliminate the professional obligation for pro bono work, if the client cannot find counsel elsewhere. In particular, in the Romer case there was state action, which was alleged to have a discriminatory impact on the daily life of certain citizens. That would be a strong case for pro bono work, in my opinion, regardless of one’s personal views on the legal issue.
Really? Roberts looks to me like a tabula rasa in his public image, on which the politically interested can write whatever interpretation they wish. Cons can think “He’s really one of us, gonna overturn Roe and help drown government in the bathtub, but just has to keep it hidden until he’s confirmed”. Libs can think “He looks OK, done some good pro bono work, probably be all right and we’re not gonna get any better”. Mods can think “He looks like he can see all sides of an issue, probably OK”. But nobody has enough facts to be truly confident, not with a guy who’s being presented as the best possible choice for the job with only 2 years on the bench. Me, I’ll stay suspicious, based on this administration’s history.
Nope, the “letting them win this one, we have to pick our fights” approach hasn’t resulted in the Dems actually picking a place to fight yet.
Nope, he’s going to make the next appointment occur at the time the Grim Reaper chooses, which is more likely to be at an awkward time than not, but apparently soon anyway.
Polycarp, O’Connor’s *stated * commitment to judicial restraint may well be admirable, but I think we all know what decision is the only one she’ll be generally remembered for - the *Bush v. Gore * opinion she was too ashamed of to even sign her name to.
Umm, the stuff I’ve read says that Bush v. Gore resembles a Kennedy opinion in writing style more than any of the others. Nonetheless, though I disagree strongly with it, I can see equal protection justification underlying it. (They rescinded my Liberal card for saying that! ;))
I think that we Left-leaning types often fail to distinguish between the “so-called ‘rights’” Conservatives and the ones with a strong commitment to civil rights who merely work from a different political and jurisprudential philosophy. Bricker, as irritated as I get at some of his obiter dicta, is firmly on record as seeing that equal protection may justify results (supposedly “victories for the Left”) that he would object to if they were founded on SDP grounds. There is a distinction between ends and means to get there that I can grasp and accept.
At least I’m consistent in poor spelling.