tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post533482690433808859..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Embryonic Stem Cell: Bad Rulings vs. Bad LawsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67536247343619871432011-10-17T23:41:43.817-06:002011-10-17T23:41:43.817-06:00you're right he made good legal decision. pe...you're right he made good legal decision. people need to understand the goverment enough to get mad at the right people. don't get mad at the president for not passing a law... that's congresses job. dont get mad at a judge for a bad law... that's congress's responsibility too...<br /><br />@ Doug S. when laws contradict the newer laws are supposed to trump older laws (that way old laws dont have to be repealed only replaced which saves time)<br /><br />the 1925 ruling over-turned a ruling from 1833 not on the basis of reinterpreting the same contents of the constitution but that the constitution had changed in 1868 to include the 14th amendment. thus it was a change in law not in interpretation.<br /><br />for a good interpretation changing case look at the korematsu v united states and the one after or the cases during and after the Mcarthy era regarding the treatment of american solcialists.<br /><br />judges are people and when they are afraid they make the same bad decisions that the rest of america makes (but many years later they tend to reverse those decision) i predict that when you are 50 you will be as embarrased for america about the islam-scare as your father is about the red-scare, and your grandfather is about the Japanese-american internment camps. i am already embarrased about the whole thing... <br /><br />but this is not one of those decision this judge did his job well. congress did not.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47137044490313639662010-08-28T02:44:45.046-06:002010-08-28T02:44:45.046-06:00Incidentally, judicial rulings have changed an awf...Incidentally, judicial rulings have changed an awful lot over the years. Did you know that the Bill of Rights <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York" rel="nofollow">was first held to apply to state governments in 1925</a>?Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28852337205994237312010-08-27T01:14:38.795-06:002010-08-27T01:14:38.795-06:00I can here conservatives screaming about "act...I can here conservatives screaming about "activist judges" already.. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29630970720396697922010-08-25T09:54:31.106-06:002010-08-25T09:54:31.106-06:00You're absolutely right. If judges ruled on th...You're absolutely right. If judges ruled on their personal beliefs instead of the law we might have had a very different result in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It's the law that needs changing.Luke Radlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09519143012693798083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66412048733477281642010-08-24T20:20:19.559-06:002010-08-24T20:20:19.559-06:00Doug S.
Yes. Nothing I wrote disputes that fact.
...<b>Doug S.</b><br /><br />Yes. Nothing I wrote disputes that fact.<br /><br />Yet, it is a bit of a stretch to say, "There are contradictions within the law so all onclusions are equally valid.<br /><br />It is still incumbent on those who wish to argue that the law is constradictory to provide specific evidence of contradictions, rather than rely on a general and vauge "contradictions exist" which, if accepted as a valid part of legal interpretation, would bring an end to the entire project of rule of law.<br /><br />If the AHA were to bring up specific and relevant contradictions, then they could have made this point.<br /><br />They did not.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28660807795162957682010-08-24T18:31:31.802-06:002010-08-24T18:31:31.802-06:00Part of the problem is that "what the law say...Part of the problem is that "what the law says" is frequently ill-defined and outright contradictory - and, as every logician knows, you can derive anything from a contradiction. So judges who try to rule entirely on the basis of "what the law says" are faced with an impossible task.<br /><br />For more information: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm<br /><br />(The site has an awkward background color, so you might like the PDF version better: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf)Doug S.noreply@blogger.com