> As long as we have non-robotic judges, the > subjective moral visions of > judges will play a role.
Of course. As I know better than you! But again, I wasn't talking > about that. > > the legislature's one of the major reasons why the > balance of political and > economic power is reflected in the character of the > law and its enforcement. > Yes, and? > > I don't see why the legal system shouldn't reflect > general moral principles. Me neither. My point is just that imposing them isn't the judge's proper role, even if it inevitably happens in the interstices. > Maybe we could disagree about _which_ moral > principles should apply, but you > seem to be arguing in favor of amorality. > Ni, just judicial restriant. The judge's moral preferences oughn't to be determinative. In this case, if the 14th amendment equal protection clause doesn't mandate color-blindness, in view of the plain language, the legislative history, and precedent -- and it doesn't -- then it is lawless of judges to impose that interpreattion merely because they think that color-blindness is morally required -- even if they are right > The folks who oppose AA invoke issues of individual > "merit" (SATs and the > whole pile of "no child left behind" testing BS). > The AA for alumni > children and athletes goes against the principles of > merit that these folks > pretend to endorse. > Oh yeah, they're hypocrites. jks __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
