It has been said, in part: "Whether Judge Roberts is a reader of Finnis or not, I think when he refers to following the rule of law he means that he will follow the law as enacted rather than substituting for it his view of what is just."
Comment: Enacted by WHOM? This is the most important question hanging over this entire discussion: Who is the law-giver, the ultimate source of law -- God or man? And when Judge Roberts says, repeatedly, that he does not believe it is proper to infer a lawyer's personal views or beliefs from the arguments advanced by that lawyer on behalf of a client, one answer is: Of course you can. And one thing you can infer is that the lawyer did not "personally" believe the client or cause to be so ub-Godly, immoral or illegal that he refused to defend said client and/or cause. May God bless us all --- as He does when we obey Him. John Lofton. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
