Comments Posted By Ed Falkner
Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments
IS INTIMIDATION OF THE JUDICIARY THE ANSWER?
Not to throw gas on the fire or anything, but:
What if the protests take the form of punishment? I don't grant to you that there is anything wrong with that as long as:
it is legal. Period.
This whole concept of imperial judiciary, the touch-me-not judiciary, who bristle at the slightest criticism of their robed utterings, is not consistent with the rule of law.
In the rule of law, the law rules, not the person of the judge. So, if a legal means exists that permits a person to defeat a judge's ruling:
like appeal,
or impeachment,
political action,
or taking the judge's ruling and applying it to the judge personally,
and it's all legal,
so what if it is punishment?
The people are supposed to run this government, not the government the people. Let's remember that.
And any judge who can't operate in that realm: get a different job. It's not about you.
Comment Posted By Ed Falkner On 29.06.2005 @ 21:52
Change "Since one does" to "Since when does".
My apologies.
Comment Posted By Ed Falkner On 29.06.2005 @ 18:05
#18
No, Rick, it is you who have obviously lost the argument.
This is not a case of intimidation. It is a case of protest.
You may target a government official for protest. You can even be clever about it. I can see nothing but justice here in this instance. Using the very same ruling which devastates others in our society to apply to the person who put pen to paper to see it happen is not revenge: it is the very definition of justice.
You reap what you sow. That's just.
And you projecting your strawman "revenge" argument on others doesn't wash. It doesn't matter what our motives are: it is our argument that is important.
I hate to see a guy floundering on his own blog, but simply being stubborn and impugning the motives of those whose arguments are better than yours is not argument.
Slowly, and one more time, with feeling:
This is an instance of giving someone the full effect of what they wreak on someone else. It is clever and has the possibility of being quite effective.
It is not illegal. The only thing one can say is that the judge might not like it. Since one does whether a judge personally like something mean it is prohibited or wrong (stop laughing). At least, it shouldn't mean that.
No, this is actually a perfect response to a wrong decision. It may actually work, but even if it doesn't, it is just.
You get what you sow.
Comment Posted By Ed Falkner On 29.06.2005 @ 18:04
Or, rather is this an issue that proves the adage: "Just not lest ye be judged, for the measure with which you measure, you will be measured."
If Kelo was such a great decision, should not the judge be subject to it as is us lesser mortals? Or are judges our new gods, striding the earth with power exuding from them, which us mere mortals may grumble about, suredly (at least yet, until the First Amendment is legislated out of existence by a 5-4 court sometime), but not too damn loud lest our betters hear us and declare us in contempt, and which we had better not get too uppity about, or else?
Let's rephrase the question, and see how it answers itself: Is making the members of the court feel the bite of their own decisions "the answer"?
Sounds like justice to me.
Comment Posted By Ed Falkner On 28.06.2005 @ 21:27
