IllAdvised Opinions
Comments about the law and the Supreme Court from an avid non-lawyers perspective
I’m in the interesting position of being an avid reader of legal opinions, listener to legal podcasts, and general analyser of various things legal… but I am not a lawyer. I am a bit of a philosopher, a bit of a theologian, an avid reader and an old debater… but I’m not a lawyer.
So my take on the law comes rather from the outside. But listening to lawyers I think that might be rather a good thing. I don’t focus so much on what the law ‘is’, on what the law ‘should be’. I’m hoping that some of my musings and reactions will make for interesting reading, and interesting discussions.
I have no particular time frame for posting. I have a whole lot of built up angst which I will be working through, but after that, who knows? Once a week? A couple of times a week? Who knows.
Avid fans of all things legal will note a certain pun-ish-ness to the title of this post… and it is purely accidental ;) I never listen to any podcast with a very dissimilar name, nor will I ever comment on anything they say there! Really!!
So far I have the following posts:
It's not a Game!
This post is just a shot across the bow. I will have a lot more to say on this subject. But there is something that is not only annoying but is profoundly evil and that needs addressing: Justice is not a game! I often hear lawyers say (and hopefully not mean) “Well, they had their day in court.” This is an ugly phrase with no possible good translation. …
Straw Examples
The other day I was listening to a popular legal podcast (Note: Not as opposed to an ‘illegal’ podcast) when the not-host, speaking about an egregious anti-first amendment case… which of course he supported… made the following simile: The case of The Twitter Troll
Rights, and Wrongs, and Affirming Gender
The English language, like all other languages, has some interesting quirks. One of them would be the word ‘right’. It can mean the direction opposite to ‘left’, it can mean the opposite of ‘wrong’ (which itself has several meanings), or it can mean ‘to be allowed to’. As in ‘I have the right to…’. Sometimes, that last can even mean that someone else ha…
The Antithetical Worlds of Justices Jackson and Thomas
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. In the recent exchange between Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Jackson in duelling Supreme Court opinions, Justice Thomas dryly says, “Justice Jackson has a different view.” As understatement, this is well pu…
The Racism of Justice Jackson
Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. There are many varieties of racism. Indeed there are so many varieties that I despair of the word ever being useful. Judge Jackson is so seeped in one of those varieties t…
See, It's Just a Game
Proverbs 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. So what happens when you’ve used up your appeals and there is a change in the meaning of the law…? Well, if its all a game they leave you in jail. The situation is this: A prisoner was jailed for violating a law. The rules for violating that law did not include, a…
Morality v Law
Psalm 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. What is the difference between law and morality?
A Disasterous Misadventure
Electing our leaders based upon voting is an exercise fraught with difficulties, as I pointed out in my ‘One Man, One Vote’ post. One of the most fraught issues is that political groups are going to try to wrest the voting system into whatever form suits them best. And there is only so much one can do about that since whoever you give the power to deter…
Flank Steak Identity Theft
When Congress has written a law that, the government insists, means that we are all guilty of breaking it, is it a law? Justice Gorsuch writes, “The United States’ maximalist approach has simplicity on its side, yes; an everybody-is-guilty standard is no challenge to administer. “ and that is, indeed, a problem.
Government Overreach Disguised as Panic
All of the legal commentators that I listen to were rather put off with the ‘statement’ by Justice Gorsuch regarding emergency Covid legislation. I was rather pleased. I would have been more pleased had he gone further. But in any case, the statement is well worth reading. It includes:
One man, one vote, doesn't work
The United States went to war with Great Britain with the slogan, amongst others, ‘no taxation without representation’. This principle, which was rather new in the worldwide scheme of things, was intended to raise a logical issue in the minds of those who heard it; challenging them to question the idea that, in any sort of parliamentary or representat…
Jury Nullification: More Definition
I made a rather bold statement in my other post, stating that every jury trial is, in one sense or another, an act of jury nullification. I explained some of that in that post, but I think it would be good to go over the ‘depth’ of that issue here. The basic act of ‘jury nullification’ consists of a jury ‘nullifying’ the law by finding a person innocent …