This was a criticism of your remark imputing certain belief to Justin - pointying that your imputation may be factually incorrect.
> personally, i value both. a wise man listens; a fool argues.
>
Ditto. But arguing can also be a heuristic device to enhance one's understanding.
> craziness. and if i understand correctly, not at all
> appealing to judges who are used to making the laws themselves.
Yes, limiting judicial discretion was the intent. I would counter, however, that it does not curb the prosecutorial discretion that is far greater and more damaging than judicial discretion. Prosecutors can chose to file or not to file charges, as well what charges they file - judges merely respond to those charges, and sentincing guidelines further limit their discretion.
> actually, wojtek, i'd say your notion that we all go out and get our
> legislators to change the laws is a terribly simplistic view.
Where did I express such a view?
> law -- into consideration. i don't see how current
> bankruptcy laws benefit
> anyone except lenders, at least not in California.
Lenders? How? I know a lot of ordinary people who were able to discharge their debt to hospitals and credit card companies, which is a good thing.
> i'm a strong believer in majorities. where this concept
> fails in the USA
> is in the fact the people are not educated and not informed about the
> society in which they live. for example, our mass media is one big
> propaganda agency promoting conservative points of view. as
> jefferson put
> it, paraphrasing, an informed electorate is the key to
> democracy. we don't
Ah well, as they say in my old country - if the grandma had mustache she would be the grandpa. It would be very nice to have all that, indeed. But I will not hold my breath to see that happen. Meanwhile, I am pretty happy that the majority cannot have they way in legislating, say, mandatory flag waving, or gay banishment - although they are getting dangerously close to legislating "English only" laws (they succeeded in CA, no?)
Wojtek