Andy9o8 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>However, with regard to point No. 1, that "morality supersedes the law" is
>the argument used by those folks who morality as a justification for
>murdering abortionists.
And for staying in the front of the bus even when ordered to sit in the back, like the law says.
To me the method matters. Someone who violates the law via a political action, a physical protest (sit in etc) to "put their morality above the law" aren't even in the same league as someone who uses murder for the same purposes.
>picture a criminal defense attorney whose viewpoint is that while there is no
>law against what his client did, he thinks that there SHOULD be a law, and
>asks the jury to convict him, anyway - it's a similar scenario to what Jerry
>Brown did.
1) Still a lot better than murder
2) If the client had sexually assaulted someone, and was going to get off because there was no law that applied 100% to his situation, I think he SHOULD do that (at which point the client is also free to get another lawyer.)
>the argument used by those folks who morality as a justification for
>murdering abortionists.
And for staying in the front of the bus even when ordered to sit in the back, like the law says.
To me the method matters. Someone who violates the law via a political action, a physical protest (sit in etc) to "put their morality above the law" aren't even in the same league as someone who uses murder for the same purposes.
>picture a criminal defense attorney whose viewpoint is that while there is no
>law against what his client did, he thinks that there SHOULD be a law, and
>asks the jury to convict him, anyway - it's a similar scenario to what Jerry
>Brown did.
1) Still a lot better than murder
2) If the client had sexually assaulted someone, and was going to get off because there was no law that applied 100% to his situation, I think he SHOULD do that (at which point the client is also free to get another lawyer.)
Quote>However, with regard to point No. 1, that "morality supersedes the law" is
>the argument used by those folks who morality as a justification for
>murdering abortionists.
And for staying in the front of the bus even when ordered to sit in the back, like the law says.
Bill - do you find there to be a difference between private citizens performing civil disobedience and governmental actors being disobedient?
It is comparable to a justice of the peace declining to marry a mixed race couple. It's his job to marry them. He refused. He should therefore lose his job, if the job is immoral to him.
Hmm. Maybe the 4th Amendment just isn't the moral thing. You just don't know who is going to be a threat to the safety.
As I've said, I agree with the political goal of seeing gay marriage legal. HOWEVER, it is why I value process. It prevents the arbitrary actions of our "leaders" and the government. Just because there would happen to be somebody with whom I agree in power at the time, the future will hold somebody who will disagree, and to the same thing to achieve a different means.
QuoteTo me the method matters. Someone who violates the law via a political action, a physical protest (sit in etc) to "put their morality above the law" aren't even in the same league as someone who uses murder for the same purposes.
I agree that method matters, but for different reason. To me, method means "process." In order to effectuate a change, you must use the same process as has been used. Thus, there is a difference between execution and murder. Before an execution the defendant is presented with the charges, the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself, the right to trial by jury, appeals, etc. The murderer usually does not give anybody even a fighting chance.
Now, I can see a person saying, "It's not God's way to keep these guys alive. Forgo the appeals and let's just get on with it. Even our formal attorney general said that there is a natural law that exceeds even our Constitution. The majority disagree with me, but we cannot allow the majority to automatically win out over the minority. Therefore, off with their heads."
What Brown argued was the elimination of process. Simply, "Judges. You decide. You know I'm right."
Quote>picture a criminal defense attorney whose viewpoint is that while there is no
>law against what his client did, he thinks that there SHOULD be a law, and
>asks the jury to convict him, anyway - it's a similar scenario to what Jerry
>Brown did.
1) Still a lot better than murder
2) If the client had sexually assaulted someone, and was going to get off because there was no law that applied 100% to his situation, I think he SHOULD do that (at which point the client is also free to get another lawyer.)
This worries me much. Perhaps our next governor and legislature will believe a defendant is not entitled to the protections of the law, nor be entitled to a defense.
PErhaps that is some people's version of moral high ground. I disagree.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/jerry-brown_linda-ronstadt.jpg
I think that reflects pretty sound judgment.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites