A few days ago, we highlighted remarks from a Justice of the 9th Circus.
Then there's SCOTUS Justice Goldberg.
Working for him was an eye-opening experience. His first question in approaching a case always was, “What is the just result?” Then he would work backward from the answer to that question to see how it would comport with relevant theory or precedent. It took me a while to get used to that approach. The way I had learned the law at Harvard was that you looked up the answer in a book. The law was composed of “neutral principles” that you could apply to get the proper result, and you never really asked whether it was just or not. Justice Goldberg opened my consciousness to the fact that the overarching purpose is about justice.
This "thinking" led to Griswold, which led to Roe v Wade, which led to Lawrence, in Clay Cramer's opinion.
Remember: Loophole Louie was appointed, not elected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that is a little unfair. The Canonical Courts basically operate in a similar fashion. Can't we just say that Butler et al misapplied the law? Maybe we could say Butler et al ruled injustly. I think Aquinas would look rather dimly upon judges not seeking justice first.
discalcedyooper,
What you are asking for judges who make the law and that is contrary to our way of government. This is stealing the powers of the legislature.
I'm sure you know, DY, that the Church court-structure is markedly different from the typical US structure.
The Church court's Chief Justice (the Pope) is ALSO the law-maker.
And while TA may well value justice in law, that's not the same as Justices-Making-Law.
That's why we have a Legislative Branch here.
Post a Comment