Do you hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all are endowed with the Rights of Life, Liberty & Pursuit?
If you are called to judge, will you do your best to secure these rights for each?
If not, why not?
Peace
Only Through Liberty
rwjefferson
John who?
John Roberts?
Until someone named John (especially one that might someday be called Supreme Judge) answers, maybe you can answer this question: If you were being tried, would you want your judge to answer to Justice or Law?
In the Spirit
rwjefferson
Not at all the same thing you asked in the OP, but for my part, I’ll take the law over justice. It might not be right, it might not be “fair,” but at least it ain’t entirely arbitrary.
I don’t think anyone named John is going to be a Supreme Judge. A Justice of the Supreme Court, maybe… but not Supreme Judge.
In any event, I’m sure you are aware the the Decleration of Independence (from which you ask your question) is not a legal document in the sense that we derive laws from it (as we do the Constitution).
Zev Steinhardt
If I were being tried, i imagine I’d want to be declared innocent, wether I deserved it or not. So, whichever of law or justice would result in my exoneration, I’d want to go with.
If you’re rather an abstract perspective, I’d want law and justice to be somewhat correlate with one another. Ideally, laws should be just. In which case there would be no meaningful distinction to choose between.
What were you trying to debate again?
BTW, pursuit of what, exactly? Hot women? Franklin Mint collectables?
I don’t think any of these are codified rights. A Justice of SCOTUS wouldn’t be bound to uphold any “right of Liberty” (??), but only to uphold the more codified rights laid out in the US Constitution. If there’s a particular right you’re worried about there, why don’t you bring that to our attention?
Whew!! For a minute there I was thinking I was being put on the spot with a trick question… 
rjefferson: What the hell are you getting at? “All” what? Are you leading us into a trap where you’re going to claim that a fetus is covered by that term? BTW, your quote is from the Declaration of Independence. SC justices don’t swear to uphold the DoI. They swear to uphold the Constution. Do you know the difference?
What would the Supreme Judge’s robes look like, I wonder. I bet they’d be pretty cool.
zev, technically, the Declaration of Independence does have some force as a legal document. Namely, it is the support for the proposition in U.S. law that “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
But yes, its various complaints do not have force of law, and a quick perusal of the document shows that it isn’t drafted in such a way as to give them force of law – they’re just complaints. The only affirmative legislative statement in the Declaration is the one I quoted.
–Cliffy
Your answer saddens me, but it is not unexpected. I fear you would not find it arbitrary punishing slaves for reading, because its the law.
Please tell me what you find so arbitrary about the goal and ideal of Liberty in America.
rwj
moderator: Please place this title where it will be revealed a mouse hover.
These questions are for all Johns, all Justices, and all potential Accused.
I would especially pray that when I come to the Supreme Judge, I would find not only Justice, but even a little Mercy.
Right now, I am only asking for Justice.
IntheSpirit
r~
That is correct. I would not value “justice” in such a situation, as the concept is nebulous enough to allow slaveowners the same moral ground as abolitionists.
I would, however, do my damnedest to change the laws to better conform to my idea of what is just.
Where on earth did that come from? Certainly not from anything I’ve said. . .
Well, I agree with the notion advanced by a much wiser man…
I prefer the imperfect application of the law to the vagaries of an individual’s notion of justice. I can understand the law and protect myself within its boundaries, whatever form it takes. I am in a greater jeopardy if I am protected only by some one else’s sense of justice.
If you caused or threatened harm, justice would not exonerate you. Justice would protect those that you harmed, those you threaten. Then again, if you did not harm or threaten, why would you trust in law that would punish you in the first place? It seems to me only those that fear justice prefer law.
So would you say that our Laws should be based on this ideal also? Should we also ask this question of lawmakers?
I am curious to know the [del]excuses[/del] reasons people do not see this Truth.
ItS
rwj
What would you pursue? If it does not prohibit someone else’s pursuit, why should the state prohibit your pursuit?
The Supreme court was not bound by the Constitution when it accepted the right to judge Legislation.
Why would you now bind Justice? Do you deny these Truths?
ItS
r~
Why do you believe that Justice is an attainable perfection?
No tricks. If you were a judge, would you dispense Law or Justice? It seems to me we have an overabundance of laws and lawyers. I seek justice.
Do you deny that the Constitution is/was instituted to secure these Rights? That these truths are just?
ItS
rwj
I assure you the slave owners based their arguments on law, not justice. Please tell me how “all” excludes slaves.
Doublespeak only changes the meaning; it does not change the truth. Calling tyranny by the name of justice does not make it justice.
r~