judicial tyranny

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Thu May 17 07:28:42 PDT 2001


My interpretation--and the SCt's--is to be preferred because we have the better argument. You don't actually dispute this. I reject the proposition that disagreement means that there is automatically an open question. I am not a relativist. --jks


>Why in the world should anyone prefer your interpretation of what
>Congress said to that of the 9th Circuit panel? Because you know what's
>"right" and they - with all their collective legal experience - don't?
>Once a panel of the 9th Circuit said what they said, it's for all time
>an open question (or if you prefer a close question) as to what's
>"right." And if it's an open or close question, and one answer has evil
>consequences, there is an unavoidable *political* decision that must be
>made. That you are blind to this is sad.
>
>john mage
>
>
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Sure it could. Congress gets to decide how to reduce (or, if it chooses,
>>to
>> increase) human suffering. We in the judicial branch just interpret what
>> Congress says. I can't go to the judge and say, hey, judge! I have a
>>great
>> idea to reduce human suffering. Let me write it up, and you issue the
>> opinion!
>>
>> - --jks
>>
>> 0
>> >
>> >Justin Schwartz wrote:
>> >
>> > > OK, take the medical marijuana decision. I think that a court's job
>>in
>> > > statutory interpretation is to track the intent of the legislature.
>>Do
>> >you
>> > > think Congress intended there to be an unexpressed, implicit
>>exception
>> >to
>> > > the prohibitions in 21 USC about controlled substances, in the case
>>of
>> > > marijuana, where there are express exceptions in the cases of
>>morphine
>> >or
>> > > methadone, for example? Not a fucking chance. This isn't political.
>>The
>> >9C
>> > > wasn't dumb; it was a respectable opinion. But it was wrong. This
>>isn't
>> > > politics. It's law. --jks
>> > >
>> >
>> >Justin, as you say, the 9C panel wasn't dumb and further they were not
>> >bad lawyers or bad judges, & their clerks were no less bright, no less
>> >principled, no less consistent and persuasive than you (OK, maybe a
>> >little). What is at issue is a great great deal of human suffering.
>> >
>> >If their opinion was "respectable" - given what is at issue - it could
>> >not be "wrong."
>> >
>> >
>> >john mage

_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list