8 ms·

The only quote from him that I know by heart: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

_8j50 4y ago
Wow! I have been saying for a while now that in the US at least the judicial system had no relationship with justice or reason. The false pretense of impartiality and apolitical decision making leads most to believe otherwise.
- Quekid5 4y ago
  Indeed, the Adversarial system includes some 'preconditions' that don't really hold in the real world, alas. Of course there are lots of other systemic issues with the US 'justice' system, but I also think the foundation is fundamentally flawed.
- MiguelX413 4y ago
  Any legalist country is like that.
- jmeister 4y ago
  It’s the job of the legislature to fix the laws and make them aligned with your idea of justice.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    While true, then there is an argument to be made about getting rid of precedents, not an ideal scenario given how ineffectual the legislative branch is.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Doesn't matter, judges have no obligatons to be just or fair. They just have to interpret the written law and precedent law as well as legislate themselves by way of precedent. Justice means to correct wrong and make it right. The law is written such that judges can apply their interpretation of it with no obligation towards reason or implied rights and wrongs by the legislature. Take asset forfeiture for example, there is no law that permits it explicitly but there are laws about property rights,due process and privacy. By precedent and in ignorance of what common sense tells a reasonable person "this is unfair" they steal property from people without due process. The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical. It is all merely theatrics to veil implementations of hidden agendas and ulterior motives.
    - scoopertrooper 4y ago
      > Doesn't matter, judges have no obligatons to be just or fair. Yeah, they are. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 > The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical. I've never gotten why people are so opposed to the idea of corporations being treated as unnatural persons for certain purposes. Companies are owned and operated by people with rights, so some of those rights transfer to the company. But, the owners agree to have some of their rights qualified when acting through a corporation in exchange for enjoying limited liability. For instance, imagine you own a house under your own name. The government can't build a stadium on top of it without just compensation. Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation? Corporations were a relatively recent invention in the context of the common law and treating them as qualified unnatural persons allowed them to integrate into the legal system without creating an entire parallel system. As a developer, I find it a pretty cute retrofit to the model.
      - _8j50 4y ago
        For the first part, that is an oath, may I ask if any judge has ever been prosecuted for being just and this breaking the law? Which law? For the second, it is not a question of opposition. It is not reasonable or logical no matter the mental gymnasics and legal bullshit you legalists try to apply to it (you are so deep in legality you have forgotten reason). There is no such thing as an unnatural person. A corporation is an entity with specific defintions. The reason behind this mental gymnastics is precisely what you noted: rights. But if you follow logic and reason companies have absolutley no rights whatsoever, only obligations and privileges that allow them to participate in commerce. However, stipulatig that somehow they are partially persons because people operate them and they derive those people's rights allows them to argue against their obligations because of inerited rights. This is what I meant by a veil of theatrics to acheive your underlying goal. Under a government of the people,for the people and by the people, the people's understand of what could reasonably be considered a person trumps every other argument. A reasonable person would not consider walmart or cpac a person or to have rights of a person because people operate it. Companies were around long before the USA was a country and this stipulation was never made before because it is hilariously illogical. If you want corporations to have specific privileges, legislate that as such, meaning unlike rights they are not irrevocable by the government and contingent on the fulfillment of their obligations. Take a billboard paid for by a company for example, the company has no rights to free speech. However the individuals that run it can run the billboard as individuals on behalf of the company, accepting responsibility as individuals under law (typically the CEO would). > Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation? It is different because you chose to make it different and relinquished any rights of ownership as an individual. You now should pay corporate taxes and nullification of your incorporation means the government gets your house. If you don't like that, buy it as a person. Thank you for bringing this up, do you know about the home ownership, housing price and homeless catastrophe that is unflolding? This is the cause. Corporations are buying houses left and right and taking advantage of home owner rights to do so. A city should be able to ban corporate owned housing but since they are persons that is impossible unless done at the federal level and even then it must pass a supreme court challenge. As a result corporations enjoy personhood rights more than most americans. When you forgot reason, you tolerated corruption at the foundation of the whole system.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Reason is the foundation of the application of law. It is absolutely taught and practiced in the judicial system. You can see it measured in every judicial review process. Justice is much more subjective and is the domain of prosecutors and the executive branch.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    You are talking about schools and ideals not reality. The checks and balances that prevent the judicial system from abandoning reason and justice have failed and as a result it is very partial and political with interpretations of the law according to opinion superseding common and reasonable understanding of justice. A person may have subjective views on justice, sure but what I am saying is even that is not being applied. A judge will not disregard an attempt to interpret law unjustly (e.g.:asset forfeiture) or attempt to give a reason as to why it is unjust, simply that the law is valid and implied injustice is correct (that is to say, the judge will not consider an interpretation law because that would imply the legislature had unjust intent according to subjective understanding). Reason is supposed to be a corner stone of the system but where public liars and corrupt people are made judges the result is what you have now. I am sure there are many in the profession that genuinely pursue justice and apply reason over whatever bullshit they can convince each other but their minority voice is drowned out it seems.
    - koheripbal 4y ago
      You are conflating the judicial system with enforcement authorities. Judges very often do reject charges and procedures brought to them by the enforcement authorities. This separation of power is evident if you ever sit in on proceedings (many courts allow and encourage the public to sit and watch). Enforcement authority is executive branch and answerable to the elected officials. If you don't like asset forfeiture - ask the mayor why he allows it. You may discover that your fellow residents don't agree with you. Judicial review panels are what judges endure in their tenure where panels of judges review how frequently their rulings are overturned in appeal. The rationale of their rulings are disputed and their tenure as a judge can be removed if they're found to intentionally skirt the law by their peers. This is how the system works. Do you have specific suggestions to make it better, or are you just advocating we burn everything down?
jfoutz 4y ago
That is a fantastic quote. I had to read up on it. So, from my very limited understanding, the point is kinda like you have to pass the legal steps before you have a chance at getting justice. Rules of evidence, Miranda warnings, whatever. I think it's sorta like you have to pass the compiler before you get a chance at a working program. Now, I'm going to strain this analogy, what do you do when there's a bug in the compiler? Me personally I patch the fucking compiler, and then submit a PR. Maybe that PR gets accepted, maybe not. But the problem I have right now is fixed. I would probably not be a good juror.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  Patching the compiler means getting a law passed, not bypassing the legal system.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    Once you've patched the compiler, you can re-run your program through it. Likely not possible to do the same for your legal case, and that assumes you can even get a law passed, which is highly doubtful. So, while you can work around the compiler issue, you cannot really remedy the legal system for your case, which could be deleterious.
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      Absolutely, it's more of an 'eventually consistent' system.
  - jfoutz 4y ago
    Ah, yeah. It's an analogy, and argument by analogy always fails, because the two things are different, and you can't really hide those differences. I'd say getting your PR accepted is like passing the law. Locally hacking up the compiler to get this one stupid executable to work is like jury nullification. Argument by analogy sucks, but hopefully this gets the spirit of what I'm trying to say across. I'm going to drop that analogy now. Back to the original quote, everybody has to follow the laws. If we don't follow the laws, there is no hope for justice. Jurys rarely if ever have to explain what they were thinking, and the best a judge can do is declare a mistrial and start over. Sometimes the law is fucked up, or it shouldn't be applied in a specific circumstance. And a jury can do that. This is of course ripe for abuse, if my buddy is on the jury of my trial, maybe I don't get convicted - but there are a bunch of laws around jury selection so hopefully that doesn't happen to often.
vintermann 4y ago
A terrible, self serving quote, given that it was spoken by a supreme judge. It was always a court of men, justice Holmes, not law.
- magpi3 4y ago
  But laws can be unjust. I think the quote is simply accurate.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    My point is, it isn't. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's always people enforcing them - or not. That is, however reluctantly, acknowledged when it's jury nullification. But judges get to stretch and squeeze laws all the time, all the way from nullification to the most unhinged overreach. And unlike juries, they get to pretend they didn't. And in an SC judge's case, it takes a constitutional crisis to overrule them. It's personal power on an unbelievable level, yet this guy pretends it's not him? That it's instead some abstract intangible force? Seriously, what a terrible person.
    - michaelt 4y ago
      Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process. And if elected lawmakers produce a clear and unambiguous law with a manifestly unjust outcome, to get that fixed society should turn to lawmakers rather than judges.
      - throw0101a 4y ago
        > Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process. Or they first arrive conclusion/decision they want for a particular case or topic, and then rationalize their decision (perhaps ignoring precedent) when they write their brief.
      - vintermann 4y ago
        What do you mean, "has to"? The point is that judges have discretion. They might, or they might not. They don't have to do very much, even when on the wrong side of both elected politicians and justice. And sure, in an ideal world things would get fixed in the legislative branch. But can you blame anyone for going where so much of actual power is?
tremon 4y ago
Then why is the man referred to as Justice Holmes, not Law Holmes?
credit_guy 4y ago
First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about laws not justice. That may be so, but if that's the case, that's pretty sad, not something to be proud of.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  It certainly is, especially because without serving justice the law loses its raison d'être. But on the other hand there are reasons why members of the judiciary need to interpret the law to the letter. If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    > If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility. That rarely happens because nearly everyone votes based on what politicians say rather than the substance of their policies. The people always get the government they deserve.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      Of course that is the ideal case. Part of the separation of powers that binds judges to the law and just laws should be passed by political bodies.
      - infamouscow 4y ago
        The only way for that to happen is people elect representatives reflecting the will of the people. If the people elect representatives that don't reflect the will of the people, they can hold their elected representatives accountable and vote for someone else in the next election cycle. But if people continue to re-elect officials that demonstrate not being aligned with their constituents, the people only have themselves to blame. It really is that simple.
- 4y ago

Wow! I have been saying for a while now that in the US at least the judicial system had no relationship with justice or reason. The false pretense of impartiality and apolitical decision making leads most to believe otherwise.

Quekid5 4y ago
Indeed, the Adversarial system includes some 'preconditions' that don't really hold in the real world, alas. Of course there are lots of other systemic issues with the US 'justice' system, but I also think the foundation is fundamentally flawed.
MiguelX413 4y ago
Any legalist country is like that.
jmeister 4y ago
It’s the job of the legislature to fix the laws and make them aligned with your idea of justice.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  While true, then there is an argument to be made about getting rid of precedents, not an ideal scenario given how ineffectual the legislative branch is.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Doesn't matter, judges have no obligatons to be just or fair. They just have to interpret the written law and precedent law as well as legislate themselves by way of precedent. Justice means to correct wrong and make it right. The law is written such that judges can apply their interpretation of it with no obligation towards reason or implied rights and wrongs by the legislature. Take asset forfeiture for example, there is no law that permits it explicitly but there are laws about property rights,due process and privacy. By precedent and in ignorance of what common sense tells a reasonable person "this is unfair" they steal property from people without due process. The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical. It is all merely theatrics to veil implementations of hidden agendas and ulterior motives.
  - scoopertrooper 4y ago
    > Doesn't matter, judges have no obligatons to be just or fair. Yeah, they are. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 > The legislature can't even stop companies from being treated as persons which any sane person will tell you is unreasonable or illogical. I've never gotten why people are so opposed to the idea of corporations being treated as unnatural persons for certain purposes. Companies are owned and operated by people with rights, so some of those rights transfer to the company. But, the owners agree to have some of their rights qualified when acting through a corporation in exchange for enjoying limited liability. For instance, imagine you own a house under your own name. The government can't build a stadium on top of it without just compensation. Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation? Corporations were a relatively recent invention in the context of the common law and treating them as qualified unnatural persons allowed them to integrate into the legal system without creating an entire parallel system. As a developer, I find it a pretty cute retrofit to the model.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      For the first part, that is an oath, may I ask if any judge has ever been prosecuted for being just and this breaking the law? Which law? For the second, it is not a question of opposition. It is not reasonable or logical no matter the mental gymnasics and legal bullshit you legalists try to apply to it (you are so deep in legality you have forgotten reason). There is no such thing as an unnatural person. A corporation is an entity with specific defintions. The reason behind this mental gymnastics is precisely what you noted: rights. But if you follow logic and reason companies have absolutley no rights whatsoever, only obligations and privileges that allow them to participate in commerce. However, stipulatig that somehow they are partially persons because people operate them and they derive those people's rights allows them to argue against their obligations because of inerited rights. This is what I meant by a veil of theatrics to acheive your underlying goal. Under a government of the people,for the people and by the people, the people's understand of what could reasonably be considered a person trumps every other argument. A reasonable person would not consider walmart or cpac a person or to have rights of a person because people operate it. Companies were around long before the USA was a country and this stipulation was never made before because it is hilariously illogical. If you want corporations to have specific privileges, legislate that as such, meaning unlike rights they are not irrevocable by the government and contingent on the fulfillment of their obligations. Take a billboard paid for by a company for example, the company has no rights to free speech. However the individuals that run it can run the billboard as individuals on behalf of the company, accepting responsibility as individuals under law (typically the CEO would). > Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation? It is different because you chose to make it different and relinquished any rights of ownership as an individual. You now should pay corporate taxes and nullification of your incorporation means the government gets your house. If you don't like that, buy it as a person. Thank you for bringing this up, do you know about the home ownership, housing price and homeless catastrophe that is unflolding? This is the cause. Corporations are buying houses left and right and taking advantage of home owner rights to do so. A city should be able to ban corporate owned housing but since they are persons that is impossible unless done at the federal level and even then it must pass a supreme court challenge. As a result corporations enjoy personhood rights more than most americans. When you forgot reason, you tolerated corruption at the foundation of the whole system.
koheripbal 4y ago
Reason is the foundation of the application of law. It is absolutely taught and practiced in the judicial system. You can see it measured in every judicial review process. Justice is much more subjective and is the domain of prosecutors and the executive branch.
- _8j50 4y ago
  You are talking about schools and ideals not reality. The checks and balances that prevent the judicial system from abandoning reason and justice have failed and as a result it is very partial and political with interpretations of the law according to opinion superseding common and reasonable understanding of justice. A person may have subjective views on justice, sure but what I am saying is even that is not being applied. A judge will not disregard an attempt to interpret law unjustly (e.g.:asset forfeiture) or attempt to give a reason as to why it is unjust, simply that the law is valid and implied injustice is correct (that is to say, the judge will not consider an interpretation law because that would imply the legislature had unjust intent according to subjective understanding). Reason is supposed to be a corner stone of the system but where public liars and corrupt people are made judges the result is what you have now. I am sure there are many in the profession that genuinely pursue justice and apply reason over whatever bullshit they can convince each other but their minority voice is drowned out it seems.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    You are conflating the judicial system with enforcement authorities. Judges very often do reject charges and procedures brought to them by the enforcement authorities. This separation of power is evident if you ever sit in on proceedings (many courts allow and encourage the public to sit and watch). Enforcement authority is executive branch and answerable to the elected officials. If you don't like asset forfeiture - ask the mayor why he allows it. You may discover that your fellow residents don't agree with you. Judicial review panels are what judges endure in their tenure where panels of judges review how frequently their rulings are overturned in appeal. The rationale of their rulings are disputed and their tenure as a judge can be removed if they're found to intentionally skirt the law by their peers. This is how the system works. Do you have specific suggestions to make it better, or are you just advocating we burn everything down?

jfoutz 4y ago

That is a fantastic quote. I had to read up on it. So, from my very limited understanding, the point is kinda like you have to pass the legal steps before you have a chance at getting justice. Rules of evidence, Miranda warnings, whatever. I think it's sorta like you have to pass the compiler before you get a chance at a working program. Now, I'm going to strain this analogy, what do you do when there's a bug in the compiler? Me personally I patch the fucking compiler, and then submit a PR. Maybe that PR gets accepted, maybe not. But the problem I have right now is fixed. I would probably not be a good juror.

snovv_crash 4y ago
Patching the compiler means getting a law passed, not bypassing the legal system.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Once you've patched the compiler, you can re-run your program through it. Likely not possible to do the same for your legal case, and that assumes you can even get a law passed, which is highly doubtful. So, while you can work around the compiler issue, you cannot really remedy the legal system for your case, which could be deleterious.
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    Absolutely, it's more of an 'eventually consistent' system.
- jfoutz 4y ago
  Ah, yeah. It's an analogy, and argument by analogy always fails, because the two things are different, and you can't really hide those differences. I'd say getting your PR accepted is like passing the law. Locally hacking up the compiler to get this one stupid executable to work is like jury nullification. Argument by analogy sucks, but hopefully this gets the spirit of what I'm trying to say across. I'm going to drop that analogy now. Back to the original quote, everybody has to follow the laws. If we don't follow the laws, there is no hope for justice. Jurys rarely if ever have to explain what they were thinking, and the best a judge can do is declare a mistrial and start over. Sometimes the law is fucked up, or it shouldn't be applied in a specific circumstance. And a jury can do that. This is of course ripe for abuse, if my buddy is on the jury of my trial, maybe I don't get convicted - but there are a bunch of laws around jury selection so hopefully that doesn't happen to often.

vintermann 4y ago

A terrible, self serving quote, given that it was spoken by a supreme judge. It was always a court of men, justice Holmes, not law.

magpi3 4y ago
But laws can be unjust. I think the quote is simply accurate.
- vintermann 4y ago
  My point is, it isn't. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's always people enforcing them - or not. That is, however reluctantly, acknowledged when it's jury nullification. But judges get to stretch and squeeze laws all the time, all the way from nullification to the most unhinged overreach. And unlike juries, they get to pretend they didn't. And in an SC judge's case, it takes a constitutional crisis to overrule them. It's personal power on an unbelievable level, yet this guy pretends it's not him? That it's instead some abstract intangible force? Seriously, what a terrible person.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process. And if elected lawmakers produce a clear and unambiguous law with a manifestly unjust outcome, to get that fixed society should turn to lawmakers rather than judges.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process. Or they first arrive conclusion/decision they want for a particular case or topic, and then rationalize their decision (perhaps ignoring precedent) when they write their brief.
    - vintermann 4y ago
      What do you mean, "has to"? The point is that judges have discretion. They might, or they might not. They don't have to do very much, even when on the wrong side of both elected politicians and justice. And sure, in an ideal world things would get fixed in the legislative branch. But can you blame anyone for going where so much of actual power is?

tremon 4y ago

Then why is the man referred to as Justice Holmes, not Law Holmes?

credit_guy 4y ago

First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about laws not justice. That may be so, but if that's the case, that's pretty sad, not something to be proud of.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
It certainly is, especially because without serving justice the law loses its raison d'être. But on the other hand there are reasons why members of the judiciary need to interpret the law to the letter. If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  > If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility. That rarely happens because nearly everyone votes based on what politicians say rather than the substance of their policies. The people always get the government they deserve.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Of course that is the ideal case. Part of the separation of powers that binds judges to the law and just laws should be passed by political bodies.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      The only way for that to happen is people elect representatives reflecting the will of the people. If the people elect representatives that don't reflect the will of the people, they can hold their elected representatives accountable and vote for someone else in the next election cycle. But if people continue to re-elect officials that demonstrate not being aligned with their constituents, the people only have themselves to blame. It really is that simple.
4y ago