LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+18 18 0
Published 2 years ago with 1 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Boethius
    +3

    Ah, yes, I had almost forgotten what gems of wisdom come from the ivory tower. I'm going to pick the most egregious part of the article, because it's typical thinking of such "educated" and "respectable" people who compose my betters.

    “Even in those cases, you have to understand that it’s still about law,” Justice Kagan said. “You don’t want a court of free-floating philosophers. You want a court of people who really care about law and are good at doing it and are experienced at doing it and who bring that worldview even to cases that involve matters of broad principle.”

    How right you are, Kagan. We don't want such "free-floating" people to bring up such "free-floating" ideas as JUSTICE, "Justice" Kagan. The very idea would make aristocrats 'round the world howl is righteous indignation, and how right they would be to do so.

    This is the problem. Right here. The conflation of law with justice. The assbackward notion that, if you really want your valuables protected, you should entrust them to a thief. Lawyers don't argue justice, they argue rhetoric and precedent; to call that "justice" is a crime.

    The fact is all a judge decides is matters of law. Whether or not the law is just is irrelevant, but should not be. I would far sooner trust an aforementioned "free-floating philosopher" to ponder whether law is just than the weasels in suits we call judges and lawyers. So, too, should everyone else. The sophist is, and always has been, nothing but a peddler of lies sold to the highest bidder with the end-goal of convincing whoever controls the executioner.

Here are some other snaps you may like...