Time's a-changin'?
I was just reading an article about Judge Alito who is the presidential nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the bench of the Supreme Court. The article was explaining how Alito took a position against the Roe v. Wade decision in an application from back in 1985.
This is an issue that I've been struggling with for some time: can the interpretation of a law change over time, depending upon the "morals" of society? For example, killing another has always been wrong in the eyes of the general public. But how about in 100 or more years times change or circumstances change to the point that killing someone else is not wrong in the eyes of the society as a whole. However, there are laws on the books against killing. What then? The executive branch (police, etc.) can arrest people for breaking the law, but must the court keep a consistent interpretation of the law at all times? That is the job of the court...to interpret the law. Could it be that simple, that the court can interpret a law by taking into account the general "feelings" of society?
Now, back to the reality of today. Roe v. Wade is going to be a huge controversial case very soon. The court's take on the constitution and laws is that there is some inherent right in the constitution that does not prevent abortion. However, that case was decided in 1973, more than 30 years ago. Assuming times have changed such that society as a whole believes that abortion is bad, should, or MUST, the justices take that into account in their next decision regarding abortion?
Interesting thing is that when the issue next comes before the Supreme Court, the court will look to interpret the Roe v. Wade decision...even though the decision provides a description that should be clear, conservatives will read it one way and liberals will read it another such that if the same case was in front of the justices today they may "interpret" the law differently than they did back in 1973. Thus, a different position would be taken. Is this fair?
Sometimes it is a harsh reality that I have to face is that while 99.9% of the people read and interpret a law that may be in my favor when I show up in court, if the .1% is sitting on the bench, I lose. It's the same law that the other 99.9% read, so why is there a different decision?
Just something to think about, yo.
Maybe I should just go back to engineering where you know whether or not you have the right answer depending upon if it breaks or not...life is much simpler there.
Cheers,
Rocco
This is an issue that I've been struggling with for some time: can the interpretation of a law change over time, depending upon the "morals" of society? For example, killing another has always been wrong in the eyes of the general public. But how about in 100 or more years times change or circumstances change to the point that killing someone else is not wrong in the eyes of the society as a whole. However, there are laws on the books against killing. What then? The executive branch (police, etc.) can arrest people for breaking the law, but must the court keep a consistent interpretation of the law at all times? That is the job of the court...to interpret the law. Could it be that simple, that the court can interpret a law by taking into account the general "feelings" of society?
Now, back to the reality of today. Roe v. Wade is going to be a huge controversial case very soon. The court's take on the constitution and laws is that there is some inherent right in the constitution that does not prevent abortion. However, that case was decided in 1973, more than 30 years ago. Assuming times have changed such that society as a whole believes that abortion is bad, should, or MUST, the justices take that into account in their next decision regarding abortion?
Interesting thing is that when the issue next comes before the Supreme Court, the court will look to interpret the Roe v. Wade decision...even though the decision provides a description that should be clear, conservatives will read it one way and liberals will read it another such that if the same case was in front of the justices today they may "interpret" the law differently than they did back in 1973. Thus, a different position would be taken. Is this fair?
Sometimes it is a harsh reality that I have to face is that while 99.9% of the people read and interpret a law that may be in my favor when I show up in court, if the .1% is sitting on the bench, I lose. It's the same law that the other 99.9% read, so why is there a different decision?
Just something to think about, yo.
Maybe I should just go back to engineering where you know whether or not you have the right answer depending upon if it breaks or not...life is much simpler there.
Cheers,
Rocco
posted by Rocco @ 12:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home