Law in Contemporary Society

View   r7  >  r6  ...
PatrickCroninFirstPaper 7 - 21 Apr 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 27 to 27
 “As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we Justices were doing essentially lawyers’ work up here – reading text and discerning our society’s traditional understanding of that text – the public pretty much left us alone. Texts and traditions are facts to study…” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) Scalia, J. dissent.
Changed:
<
<		This method creates legitimacy by assuring anyone that the answer to the legal question was always there – the layman just couldn’t see it because it was a legal question that had to be solved by lawyers. Nothing creative happened here, just something on a higher plane of thought.
>
>		This method creates legitimacy by assuring everyone that the answer to the legal question was always there – the layman just couldn’t see it because it was a legal question that had to be solved by lawyers. Nothing creative happened here, just something on a higher plane of thought.
 The problem with transcendental nonsense is that it refuses to consider real ethical questions – a task that requires creative thought. And if the court refuses to acknowledge its ability to create, then parties with interests other than justice will be more than happy to pick up the slack.

Revision 7r7 - 21 Apr 2009 - 02:15:21 - PatrickCronin
Revision 6r6 - 19 Apr 2009 - 20:32:15 - PatrickCronin
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM