Should the US Supreme Court Decide Cases Based on the Constitution or on Fairness?

[mkemse]

Tough question, as the Conservatives will have a much different view of the law then Liberals, will, it will boil down to interpretation of the lsawwhich will vary greatly depending on thier personal views

[Ragoczy]

Tough question, as the Conservatives will have a much different view of the law then Liberals, will, it will boil down to interpretation of the lsawwhich will vary greatly depending on thier personal views

The judges' interpretation of the law is actually secondary, the primary consideration is precedent. So the interpretation is set the first time and then clarified through future decisions.

But, ultimately, what the words of a law mean is fundamentally clearer to interpret than what's "fair", yes?

[mkemse]

The judges' interpretation of the law is actually secondary, the primary consideration is precedent. So the interpretation is set the first time and then clarified through future decisions.

But, ultimately, what the words of a law mean is fundamentally clearer to interpret than what's "fair", yes?

True, how ever if as I said before, you nd I both read the same thing, isn't there achance that your interpretation may be different then mine, this does not make either of us wrong, but when peole read anything people always interpret things differently and even "Fair" what you may find fair and I may find fair may be different

[Ragoczy]

True, how ever if as I said before, you nd I both read the same thing, isn't there achance that your interpretation may be different then mine, this does not make either of us wrong, but when peole read anything people always interpret things differently and even "Fair" what you may find fair and I may find fair may be different

But as I said, the written word is inherently clearer than "fairness". There's less room for difference. And everyone can read the words of the law, whereas we can't look into the heart of the judge and know what he'll think is fair.

Imagine if something like child support was determined by each individual judge's sense of fairness instead of legislated guidelines -- one judge thinks it's fair to allocate 80% of a man's income while another thinks 20% is fair. With written law, the rule is known.

[mkemse]

But as I said, the written word is inherently clearer than "fairness". There's less room for difference. And everyone can read the words of the law, whereas we can't look into the heart of the judge and know what he'll think is fair.

Imagine if something like child support was determined by each individual judge's sense of fairness instead of legislated guidelines -- one judge thinks it's fair to allocate 80% of a man's income while another thinks 20% is fair. With written law, the rule is known.

The written word can be interpated differnt way i read a book i get one thing out of it you reasd the same and getsomething else out of it thats all i am saying

Yes but very few Judges follow the written lat to the word or they would never have to decide how do i sentence him or her all he would have to do is say "The Law says..." which i have heard but they still make their own decion
The written law(s) to me a a guideline, i have neevr heard or read where a JUdge follwed the written law to thword if they did, the 2nd Ammendnent says NOTHING about hand gun owbership ect, so the Judges interpret what they have the way thewy want, the 2nd Ammendment is Written law but exclusive or specific guide lne all it says is "The right o bear arms will not be infrigned upon" but what type arms?? a rifle, a AK47, an Uzi, A Canno
Thw rittne law is a guideline open to interpretation, if it weren't every criminal inthis country wuld face the exact same pentaly for the same crime, which rarely happens

[Ragoczy]

The written word can be interpated differnt way i read a book i get one thing out of it you reasd the same and getsomething else out of it thats all i am saying

Yes but very few Judges follow the written lat to the word or they would never have to decide how do i sentence him or her all he would have to do is say "The Law says..." which i have heard but they still make their own decion
The written law(s) to me a a guideline, i have neevr heard or read where a JUdge follwed the written law to thword if they did, the 2nd Ammendnent says NOTHING about hand gun owbership ect, so the Judges interpret what they have the way thewy want, the 2nd Ammendment is Written law but exclusive or specific guide lne all it says is "The right o bear arms will not be infrigned upon" but what type arms?? a rifle, a AK47, an Uzi, A Canno
Thw rittne law is a guideline open to interpretation, if it weren't every criminal inthis country wuld face the exact same pentaly for the same crime, which rarely happens

I didn't disagree that written law can be interpreted different ways in some cases, what I said that it is inherently clearer than the nebulous concept of "fairness".

And you're incorrect on judges following the law. They follow it, to the letter, every day. With specific regard to sentencing, the written law sets forth a range of what the sentence should be with the expectation that the judge will use his discretion given the details of the case. If the range is 6 to 8 years, it's a rare case that the judge attempts to go outside that range. If the legislation specified a single term, instead of a range, that's what the sentence would be.

Furthermore, they follow the law daily with regard to admissible testimony. Every objection is weighed against the law -- a hearsay objection isn't an interpretation of what hearsay is, but an evaluation of the particular testimony to determine if it meets that criteria. Ever hear of a "three strikes" law? If the judges didn't have to follow the letter of the law, they wouldn't complain so much about having to, say, sentence someone to life in prison for grabbing a slice of pizza. Mandatory minimum sentences, where the law clearly lays out the minimum sentence for a crime, regardless of the specific circumstances.

All of these are instances of judges having to follow the letter of the law. And it's the vast majority of the cases, because if they don't, the case will be heard by an appellate court and their decision will be overturned.

[mkemse]

I didn't disagree that written law can be interpreted different ways in some cases, what I said that it is inherently clearer than the nebulous concept of "fairness".

And you're incorrect on judges following the law. They follow it, to the letter, every day. With specific regard to sentencing, the written law sets forth a range of what the sentence should be with the expectation that the judge will use his discretion given the details of the case. If the range is 6 to 8 years, it's a rare case that the judge attempts to go outside that range. If the legislation specified a single term, instead of a range, that's what the sentence would be.

Furthermore, they follow the law daily with regard to admissible testimony. Every objection is weighed against the law -- a hearsay objection isn't an interpretation of what hearsay is, but an evaluation of the particular testimony to determine if it meets that criteria. Ever hear of a "three strikes" law? If the judges didn't have to follow the letter of the law, they wouldn't complain so much about having to, say, sentence someone to life in prison for grabbing a slice of pizza. Mandatory minimum sentences, where the law clearly lays out the minimum sentence for a crime, regardless of the specific circumstances.

All of these are instances of judges having to follow the letter of the law. And it's the vast majority of the cases, because if they don't, the case will be heard by an appellate court and their decision will be overturned.

Yes the do follow the law but they can also issue their own sentences they have guidlines to go with so they can use thier descrition as to how long or short asentence should be thats all

At least here in America, it is nice to be able to agree to disagree respectful without going to jal over the issue