Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beestie
You are equating subjectivity to fairness.
|
I am not equating subjectivity to fairness. Subjectivity can be fair or unfair, depending on the person and situation. What I am arguing is that since morals are subjective, it is up to the judges to determine which subjective solution should be used.
This is not a great analogy but take this example. Lets say someone wrote a book two hundred years ago arguing why every law should be followed, including slavery. If this book is read today, it could equally be interpreted that slavery is legitimate and illegitimate depending on whether you follow the message of the book that every law should be followed (slavery is illegal today and therefore illegitimate) or follow the direct quotations of the book that slavery benefits society and law (slavery should be legitimate). It is up the lawyers to present both sides and up to the judge to determine which side is "correct".
That is what I mean about interpretation being subjective. A law or moral code cannot absolutely apply to every situation and therefore it is up to the judge to determine where it should and should not apply. It will not and can not be fair.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beestie
While true, it is not a justification of or an endorsement of subjectivity. Subjectivity is a shortcoming that must be overcome in order to provide fairness.
|
I'm assuming you are saying that just because Sotomayor has a different viewpoint it does not justify her being appointed to the Supreme Court? If so, then what should it be based on (besides the obvious qualifications). I'm sure the majority of Supreme Court justices have been put on for some sort of agenda and I don't see how this is any different.