From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Constitutional Interpretation (was Re: Pro-Choice)
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:55:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <yaksPB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> In article <emPkPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
>> Winemiller) writes:
>> >rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>> >
>> >> In article <TqgFPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Ch
>> >> Winemiller) writes:
>> >> >rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <63s9oB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
>> >> >> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> >> >There can be no requirement for justices to be personally "a-political"; 
>> >> >is unrealistic, and, as private citizens, they have a right to be
>> >> >politically active.  However, _when they sit as judges in active court_,
>> >> >they should set aside the personal political cloak, and don the cloak of
>> >> >"court justice", deciding what the laws mean (as they were intended), and
>> >> >applying them to the situations at hand.  I think this can be possible.
>> >> >Other professionals (doctors, psychologists,..) set aside "personal" issu
>> >> >when they step into their offices; why not justices?
>> >> 
>> >> 	Well, I don't buy that line of reasoning. "Other professionals" barely
>> >> equates with "Supreme Court Justice". And, those others are certainly sway
>> >> by bias... we all are, like it or not.
>> >
>> >Those professionals don't just "invent" their way along their jobs.  Doctors
>> >and psych's, for example, put a distance between themselves and their
>> >patients in order to bring as much objectivity as possible to their work. 
>> >They also act according to what are the known facts upon which their
>> >professions are based (e.g., biological facts).  I expect SC justices to
>> >bring the same professional objectivity to their work.
>> 
>> 	Well, I strongly suggest you read up on how doctors and psych's
>> determine treatment methods.
>
>Hopefully, as they "experiment" subjectively (which is kinda what you've
>implied), they are actually trying to follow up on newly discovered "facts"
>(i.e. theories which seem to have been proven true by scientific
>observation).  Since I raised the analogy of doctors, I'll try to complete
>my analogy (though it may get a bit shaky).  A doctor searches the journals
>for new scientific discoveries --- i.e. for new non-subjective, non-personal
>bases upon which to make decisions about diagnoses and treatments.  The new
>scientific discoveries are analogous to newly-passed laws (including
>Constitutional amendments).  A judge then makes decisions about how to apply
>the new "discoveries" (laws, amendments) to situations at hand.

	Fair enough analogy; I like it. The doctor's purpose is to preserve
the health of the patient, the judge's purpose is justice. To each, these
are original intent. Methods of treatment change as knowledge increases.
The enumerated rights were not meant to deny other rights, since justice
was the intent. Should doctors' intent have been to fix known ailments,
today's doctor wouldn't be preserving the health of cancer patients.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"