Unfortunately, history and current events prove you wrong. Please give me a case where a judge securing your right of pursuit puts you in jeopardy.
r~
I only believe that this is the way to seek Justice. I cannot understand how this could be so clear to bf, tj, gw et al, and yet so foreign to this generation.
r~
rwjefferson, it may be just me here and I am not trying to be insulting but I haven’t the slighest clue what you are talking about or wish to debate. Can you expand and specify what it is that you do wish to debate?
Humor me. Start by answering my first four questions.
I would wish there would be no debate. The thread shows otherwise.
rwj
Law. If I thought the law was incompatible with justice, I would resign. If I thought the law, as a whole, was really, really, REALLY at odds with justice, I’d consider taking up arms and joining the resistance.
What’s the next question?
What 4 questions? Please go in depth with your explanation.
May I assume then that you see the Judiciary as the rubber stamp of law as opposed to an independent branch?
rwj
These answers are self-evident (obvious) to me. It is the signing of these truths that I celebrate the 4th of July.
I wish to understand why American’s do not hold America to her promise.
If you please, I am looking for answers.
rwj
On all other nights, we may eat chametz and matzah; on this night, only matzah.
On all other nights, we eat many vegetables; on this night, maror.
On all other nights, we do not dip even once; on this night, twice.
On all other nights, we eat either sitting or reclining; on this night, we all recline.
Oh, wait. Sorry.
Wrong four questions.
Bricker: Maybe you did just answer my questions. I have the strong feeling that most people just don’t have a clue. 
rwj
When I first read the OP, I looked up to the name of the poster, sure I would see the word “guest” underneath.
Well, I’ll do my best to answer the questions.
yep.
yep.
Not Applicable
This one’s a little tougher, but I guess my answer would be:
I would want my judge to find the justice in the law and rule based on that understanding.
.
I’ll overlook the awkward construction of your sentence.
EVERY judge would tell you he believes in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
William Rehnquist believes in it. William Brennan believed in it. Does that alone tell us anything about how either would vote? Nope, not a damn thing.
So, even if John Roberts answered you question in the affirmative (and what idiot would say “No, I don’t believe in those things?”), that wouldn’t tell you anything useful.
Congratulations, you are the first to answer in the affirmative. Please define “that understanding”. I am defining Justice as the balance of self-evident rights; guided, but not bound to a law that violates those rights.
rwj
As Lincoln said about liberty:
Please help me with the wording of the question. How would you ask?
The more important question is the second one: If you are called to judge, will you do your best to secure these rights for each?
Maybe someone can help me with the cites, I have recent memory of Judges feeling bound by the law, even though they felt it unjust.
The second question certainly gives us indication.
[joke]To find out, just review the responses. :)[/joke]
No, the executive branch is the one which rubber stamps the law. 
As Lincoln said about liberty:
Doublespeak can only hide; it cannot change the truth. Calling tyranny by the name of liberty does not make it liberty. Only tyrants would overlook the word “all”.
rwj
I think it might have helped this discussion if you had revealed your definition of justice at the beginning. It seems to me that you didn’t want a discussion but were simply trying to lead the people of this message board somewhere and you did not want to reveal your intentions.
You say “congratulations,” so I assume you think I got close to the place you are trying to lead us.
Let me elaborate my sentence. By “that understanding,” I mean the judge’s understanding of what justice is. I don’t have a problem with each judge having a slightly different interpretation of the meaning of the word. I can only hope that they each can come as close to a perfect ideal as humanly possible.
I am not defining justice in my answer. I simply mean that, in this vague hypothetical, I would want my judge to carefully study the law as it applies in my specific case, and apply it as justly as humanly possible.
John:
This seems a contradiction to me:
“If you were a judge would you dispense Law or Justice.”
“Law”.
“May I assume then that you see the Judiciary as the rubber stamp of law as opposed to an independent branch?”
“No.”
If the Judiciary does not rule on law, but dispense Justice, how is it independent?
Also, again please answer:
Do you deny that the Constitution was instituted to secure these rights?
rwj
Sorry, the definition of justice is clear to me: Conformity to truth. I have no ulterior motives. Are these truths self-evident, or are they not? Is not Justice found in seeking Liberty for all?
Justice cannot be found in an unjust law. The Judicial branch was instituted independently to protect us all from tyrants, especially those in government. We fail to recognize this only at great risk.
rwj