<DIV>Here's the problem: there's a disagreement that is ineradicable about what's moral. Do you want antiabortion judges acting in defiance of Roe and Casey? Homophical judges punjsing gay behavior in definace of Roemer and Lawrence? Racist judges defying Brown?  The judge is charged with enforcing the law. Not with making it. Not with doing what he thinks is personally right in definace of the law. You want moral laws, go to the legislature. Sure, you want judges to enforce the correct moral views (yours) -- that goes along with your idea that people are free to disagree as long as they do what you think is right. The Christian right will agree with that . . . </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>jks</DIV> <DIV> BklynMagus <magcomm@ix.netcom.com> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Dear List: Luke wrote: >Well, one of his claims (which you don't seem to agree with) is that sometimes judges ought to enforce immoral laws. I happen to agree. Charles responded: > This is the way I would paraphrase what you say here: "Sometimes it is moral for judges to enforce immoral laws." To me "ought" is a synonym for designating what is "moral". I believe Charles has it exactly right here. I have been researching Rawls and his theories and will post on that when I have a chance, but if I have understood what I have read so far, fundamental rights are not open to debate. Human beings have them. When laws are enacted that violate these rights, judges (acting in the role of a check and balance), should invalidate them. The enforcement of immoral laws goes against the fundamentals that the system is predicated on. > I mean if the judge could prevail (which sometimes they can because the other party can't appeal for some reason), then I would say the judge ought to go against the bad law. I think it is helpful to always adopt the attitude of opposition/resistance. As soon as people start going along withouot questioning, then the terror begins. Even if she is eventually overturned, a judge's act of resistance can be part of the process of changing laws that persecute. Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/new/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail">Check it out!</a>