No your point is factually correct. I might add though, that law is in many cases the enforcement arm of the mores in a society, hence the many different laws in different societies. Moral outrage is a valid way to express displeasure with an unjust law. There is no way for a normal person to fix the conflicts, as the judges are not elected and are entrenched for life, in fact appointed by the very club (Congress) that is the source of the outrage. If we think that these judges are going to not find ways to not rock the establishment, then we are being naïve. Moral outrage is a good start.
No your point is factually correct. I might add though, that law is in many cases the enforcement arm of the mores in a society, hence the many different laws in different societies. Moral outrage is a valid way to express displeasure with an unjust law. There is no way for a normal person to fix the conflicts, as the judges are not elected and are entrenched for life, in fact appointed by the very club (Congress) that is the source of the outrage. If we think that these judges are going to not find ways to not rock the establishment, then we are being naïve. Moral outrage is a good start.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/4_Amer_Law_Econ_Rev_227.pdf
I like that compromise. It is a good starting point (certainly far better than apathy). It must be followed through with something more substantial.
Like moral outrage. The legal profession has been compromised. Has it not?