3 ms·
> Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here? We should give some deference to precedent, but t
by kansface 4y ago
> Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?
We should give some deference to precedent, but the rule of law is paramount. Consider what the opposite of the rule of law really entails, or how hard won that victory was.
- softcactus 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral.
- kansface 4y ago> What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. We can't organize society to run on what is just, ethical, or moral. We can only make laws based on our understanding of those things. Our understanding of morality changes over time. Where the law is unjust, we should change the law. Abandoning the rule law ends badly.