> Absolute right and wrong require a frame of reference that is unchanging, but there is no such frame of reference available to us.

That's true, and that's why moral relativism/skepticism are useful for expanding your perception, building your personal ethics, and good for discussion. But you don't want two different judges interpreting the same laws very differently based on their philosophical structures. Some is inevitable, but the more random and persona-centric law gets, the worse off we are.

> The most popular is that of a God, but if you're like me, you see God as a human construction too.

Another common criteria is the one used for "natural rights" - natural rights are basically the list of things that everyone almost universally agrees on. People almost universally want a fair trial, the ability to speak their mind, and associate with the people they want to. If you look at the U.S. Bill of Rights, almost all of them are noncontroversially things people would want.

(Tangent: The only two that there might be significant disagreement on now are right to bear arms and rights reserved by state, but you it's easy to understand why they'd be agreed upon near universally back then, before private militias, in a era of lots of global and some tribal warfare, and when "arms" were muskets, sidearms, swords, and knives. Also they'd just broken free from an empire, they didn't want to fall under imperial control again)

> Laws are made by Man; rule of law is rule of man.

From Wikipedia: "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law."

Same article: "Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws.""

That means that servants of the law enforce the law as uniformly as possible until it is changed, and the interpretation and enforcement of the law is not subject to personal philosophies and relative morals. This is not completely possible, we are human, but it's worth striving for. Relativism in a courtroom is a dangerous thing.

I'm with you on the rest of it - I'm probably not universally against torture in the case of emergencies. But if you're not very careful, soon you're torturing anyone that's got a pretty good chance of something positive happening from torturing them.

Almost by definition, torture is extralegal (outside of the law). As long as we don't have laws legitimizing torture, then the judge is advocating the authorities act outside on the law on one of the most scarring, brutal things that can be inflicted on a human being. Actually, there are laws regarding torture - it's the Geneva Convention:

" The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power; and willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

So we've got a judge saying publicly that for important cases, we can break international law, break the legal process, and torture (torture!) another human being who might produce a solution to the important case at hand. It would be scary if any influential American was advocating these things - the fact that it's a well-known judge is cause for even greater alarm.