4 ms·

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?
      - michaelt 4y ago
        > What do you mean, "has to"? The point is that judges have discretion. Well, the justice system has a number of types of discretion: (1) Determining facts. Two first-hand accounts disagree, which do we find most believable? (2) Discretion granted by lawmakers. This person has been found guilty of X and the law calls for a prison sentence of 3 to 15 years depending on the facts of the case, how long should the sentence be? (3) Discretion in how to interpret the words of the law. For example, if a farmer grows wheat to feed to his own livestock, and it isn't sold and doesn't cross state lines, is that still "interstate commerce" because otherwise the farmer might have brought feed on on the national market? You're never going to remove (1) or (2) from the legal system, of course. But some people would say (3) is a question of politics which should be resolved through the political system - not through the justice system.
        OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        I think you touch with (3) on the awesome and terrible power of a prosecutor, who execute the law. It brings up related two latin phrases and one in spanish de minimis non curat lex / de minimis non curat praetor [1] De los asuntos intrascendentes no se ocupa el magistrado On one side we could have the "hanging prosecutor" and the other extreme, a Chesa Boudin refusing to bring cases forward. Selecting prosecutors with the wisdom to know where the harsh application of the law is needed, and where electing not to bring forward a case is essential, or, a diversion to a non-criminal path is a must. Discretion & wisdom are essential. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
  - bilekas 4y ago
    I think personally "Justice" is relative.. Where as the law, while it can be interpenetrated differently and this brings up discussions, its 'quantity' is not relative. So I imagine some victims for example may not feel that a minor fine/warning is 'Justice' they can't argue that it was decided by the law ?
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    That is not their role in the system. Sure, they CAN squeeze and stretch laws, but that is tolerated, not part of the design. The application of law to promote justice is the role of the prosecutor - and that is the part that is most frequently broken.
rzwitserloot 4y ago
I don't know. I can plausibly read it (knowing nothing about the man) as self-deprecating. A realisation that he's bound by what the law says, even if _he_ finds it unjust. For example, if a jury finds a defendant guilty of some crime, because they really did it (let's say Aladdin stole some bread from the supermarket and it's clear beyond reasonable doubt that he did indeed), and the law dictates that the _minimum_ penalty is 10 years, then a judge is bound. It does not matter one iota that both the jury and the judge feels this punishment is excessive bordering on ridiculous; in that sense, it is 'a court of law' and not 'a court of justice'. It's not self-serving, it's self-denigrating: Awareness that the judge/jury can't just decide together how to proceed. That's what jury nullification is about: If a jury member realizes the judge is going to be forced to give a to them utterly ridiculous sentence if the jury finds the defendant guilty, you can simply decide to find them not guilty even though you are well convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are. Now they are meting out justice and flaunting the law. The jury can actually get away with this (as this news article again shows); a judge absolutely wouldn't be able to. NB: Current SCOTUS seems to just do whatever the heck they feel like, flaunting all plausible readings of a given law, deference to expertise, and precedence (e.g. how modern SCOTUS opinions often write that Stare Decisis is meaningless – saying that it matters "unless it was wrongly decided" is a euphemism for "it does not matter", of course). So specifically modern day SCOTUS? They seem to think they are beyond the law. It also shows how I really, really don't think you _want_ a court to think itself a court of justice, meeting out excessive punishments because they feel that is just, and letting defendants clearly guilty of egregious acts go free or nearly so for some imagined reason. It also means that any clash with the law has utterly unpredictable consequences. By definition, minimum and maximum penalties clash with the notion that a court is 'a court of justice' instead of 'a court of law'.
jollyllama 4y ago
Yes. Even his attempt to be frank, he's obscuring the truth.

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?
    - michaelt 4y ago
      > What do you mean, "has to"? The point is that judges have discretion. Well, the justice system has a number of types of discretion: (1) Determining facts. Two first-hand accounts disagree, which do we find most believable? (2) Discretion granted by lawmakers. This person has been found guilty of X and the law calls for a prison sentence of 3 to 15 years depending on the facts of the case, how long should the sentence be? (3) Discretion in how to interpret the words of the law. For example, if a farmer grows wheat to feed to his own livestock, and it isn't sold and doesn't cross state lines, is that still "interstate commerce" because otherwise the farmer might have brought feed on on the national market? You're never going to remove (1) or (2) from the legal system, of course. But some people would say (3) is a question of politics which should be resolved through the political system - not through the justice system.
      - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        I think you touch with (3) on the awesome and terrible power of a prosecutor, who execute the law. It brings up related two latin phrases and one in spanish de minimis non curat lex / de minimis non curat praetor [1] De los asuntos intrascendentes no se ocupa el magistrado On one side we could have the "hanging prosecutor" and the other extreme, a Chesa Boudin refusing to bring cases forward. Selecting prosecutors with the wisdom to know where the harsh application of the law is needed, and where electing not to bring forward a case is essential, or, a diversion to a non-criminal path is a must. Discretion & wisdom are essential. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
- bilekas 4y ago
  I think personally "Justice" is relative.. Where as the law, while it can be interpenetrated differently and this brings up discussions, its 'quantity' is not relative. So I imagine some victims for example may not feel that a minor fine/warning is 'Justice' they can't argue that it was decided by the law ?
- koheripbal 4y ago
  That is not their role in the system. Sure, they CAN squeeze and stretch laws, but that is tolerated, not part of the design. The application of law to promote justice is the role of the prosecutor - and that is the part that is most frequently broken.

rzwitserloot 4y ago

I don't know. I can plausibly read it (knowing nothing about the man) as self-deprecating. A realisation that he's bound by what the law says, even if _he_ finds it unjust. For example, if a jury finds a defendant guilty of some crime, because they really did it (let's say Aladdin stole some bread from the supermarket and it's clear beyond reasonable doubt that he did indeed), and the law dictates that the _minimum_ penalty is 10 years, then a judge is bound. It does not matter one iota that both the jury and the judge feels this punishment is excessive bordering on ridiculous; in that sense, it is 'a court of law' and not 'a court of justice'. It's not self-serving, it's self-denigrating: Awareness that the judge/jury can't just decide together how to proceed. That's what jury nullification is about: If a jury member realizes the judge is going to be forced to give a to them utterly ridiculous sentence if the jury finds the defendant guilty, you can simply decide to find them not guilty even though you are well convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are. Now they are meting out justice and flaunting the law. The jury can actually get away with this (as this news article again shows); a judge absolutely wouldn't be able to. NB: Current SCOTUS seems to just do whatever the heck they feel like, flaunting all plausible readings of a given law, deference to expertise, and precedence (e.g. how modern SCOTUS opinions often write that Stare Decisis is meaningless – saying that it matters "unless it was wrongly decided" is a euphemism for "it does not matter", of course). So specifically modern day SCOTUS? They seem to think they are beyond the law. It also shows how I really, really don't think you _want_ a court to think itself a court of justice, meeting out excessive punishments because they feel that is just, and letting defendants clearly guilty of egregious acts go free or nearly so for some imagined reason. It also means that any clash with the law has utterly unpredictable consequences. By definition, minimum and maximum penalties clash with the notion that a court is 'a court of justice' instead of 'a court of law'.

jollyllama 4y ago

Yes. Even his attempt to be frank, he's obscuring the truth.