If I may.
The OP’s real goal is to show how corrupt modern American political life is since we no longer follow the precepts of the sainted founders. We’re living under a brutal tyranny, only we don’t even know it!
I submit the self-evident truths in our Declaration of Independence as that perfect ideal. I wish to see where they lead.
rwj
Lemur866: My goal is to point us toward the American dream: the promise of Liberty for all.
I want to know whether potential judges are going to help secure that goal, or bow to the tyranny of unjust laws.
rwj
I would be interested to hear which, specifically, of our current laws you believe to be unjust.
That is a different thread. I wish to hear now of whether my statement(s) ring true.
rwj
That is also a different thread. This thread is “Questions for John (Roberts).” Since John Roberts is unlikely to appear here and answer these questions, I’m having trouble understanding the point of this thread. Do you simply wish us each to tell you if we do or do not “hold these truths to be self evident?” Do you wish to debate the pros and cons of apponting John Roberts to the Supreme Court?
I fear that if you do not clarify your intentions in plain language, and rather insist on using flowery phrases like “bow to the tyranny of unjust laws,” there will be precious few responses to this thread, especially in this forum.
A moderator took the liberty to modify and restrict my title, but did not honor my request to clarify that the questions were actually directed at everyone.
I have stated in this thread that I wish to know why these Truths are not self-evident. I have asked people, if they please, to answer my questions. I have received very few answers.
I would like to see all judicial nominees asked these questions. I have no doubt that a number would answer “no.” At least we would know what to expect from them, the people nominated them, and those that voted to confirm them.
As seen in this thread, I expect most would duck these questions if possible.
rwj
They’re not self evident because not everyone agrees with them, and also, because, as Lincoln said in the part of the speech I quoted, different people mean different things when they use the words.
I would guess the ones that did not agree with them are also the ones that would confuse liberty with tyranny. I interpreted your quote to indicate Lincoln understood the difference.
My question is Do you?
rwj
But wait, if Captain Amazing was the kind of person who confused liberty with tyranny, don’t you think he’d say he was in favor of liberty even if he was in favor of tyranny? And if he was the sort who didn’t confuse liberty with tyranny, he would probably say the same thing.
So if he answers the question about whether he prefers liberty or tyranny he won’t provide us with any new information about whether he confuses liberty with tyranny. Of course, I have my own…suspicions…
I had a fairly long post, but it got eaten, so I’ll just repeat my last line. I’ll bet you that if you ask every single justice of the Supreme Court, every member of the Administration, and every member of Congress, “Do you love liberty? Do you hate tyranny? Do you want to see justice done?”, they’ll tell you they do, and they’ll all be telling the truth.
The question you need to ask them is, “What do you consider liberty? What do you consider tyranny? What do you consider justice?” Questions like that will tell you what someone believes, because as Lincoln knew, the trick is in the definition.
Bwahaha! Bow before me, puny mortal!
That is true. I asked different questions. What if they were asked those questIons? Is there a way to measure their commitment to their answeres? You know, measure their nose to see if it grows.
rwj
I guess I’ll have a crack at this.
No.
Yes, people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among these rights. No, this is not self-evident, despite what Jefferson said. If it were, then there would be no disagreement.
No. I would interpret the law, as described elsewhere in this thread. If that is a meaningful distinction.
Because that is not my job as a judge.
Legislatures make laws. The executive branch enforces them. The judicial branch interpets them. All these three branches, acting together and serving as a check on the unbridled power of each other, defend my rights. No one branch can do so alone. Your questions seem to imply that judges have a special duty, greater than that of other servants of the people. I don’t see that.
Is that what you meant?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan: I thank you for your well-considered response.
Self-evident does not necessarily mean “no disagreement”. From your post, I will assume that these truths - these rights - are evident to you. If they came easily, they are considered self-evident.
I ask the question because I wish to know whether these rights are accepted and understood. I greatly prefer a candidate that finds these rights (and obligations that go with them) to be self-evident. In my experience, people that do not easily see truth tend toward tyranny; or at least the acceptance of tyranny. “We hold these truths…” Tyrants do not.
You are correct; judges do not have a duty any greater than that of other servants of the people. Indeed, it is the equal duty, the equal responsibility of all (both the servants of the people and the people themselves), to secure (protect) the rights of each.
If a person fails in his responsibility, and takes or threatens the rights of another, it is the duty of the state to secure those rights. If a state fails likewise (e.g. Jim Crow), it becomes the duty of the federal government. By equal obligation, when the other branches of government fail, this same duty falls to the courts.
A constitution is instituted as a means to secure these rights; it is not an end to itself. The courts are not obligated to any other branch of government when it comes to securing these rights. Each branch is obligated, separately and equally, in this trust.
The other branches can only guide, they cannot dictate Justice. Justice is the balance of truth against law. When you bind the scales of Justice to law, you bind them against truth. You no longer have Justice, you have tyranny. A dictatorship of the law is still a dictatorship. Tyranny by any name is still tyranny.
Do not accept tyranny. Ask these questions.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
I’ll be happy to dney the Constitution was instituted to secure those rights. Let’s examine its preamble, shall we?
That is what the Constitution was instituted to do. Now, the bit about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is actually from the Declaration of Indpendence.
Now, although the DoI does have a blurb in it about “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,” it also has the blurb “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
So, it seems there are two things going on here:
- The people form government to effect “Safety and Happiness.”
- You’re not familiar which historic document says what.