pyrodeus wrote in TR Forums:
He’s also no Solomonic jurist. He doesn’t mind if an individual has to be unfairly screwed by the system if that’s what the law says. Permanent arrest record forever hanging around the neck of a ten year old girl and screwing up her chances of employment for the “crime” of eating a single french fry on the DC metro?
He seems to view “wisdom” as the realm of the legislature, and his job is merely to read the laws that they they, in their wisdom, have promulgated.
I have no problem with Kerry’s asking for documents.
These issues are interesting because of their implications. They define some of the more significant philosophies about governance and privacy that we face today.
The ‘wisdom’ of the legislature is the wisdom of the people who elected them and delegated powers to them. If the people cannot be entrusted to govern themselves, then who should? If the people can or should govern themselves, then what limitations should be placed on that governance to inhibit rashness or impulse or temporary whims of the public, if any?
Whose responsibility is it to correct screwed up laws? How do they gain this responsibility? How are they held accountable to make sure that what they consider as ‘screwed up’ is really screwed up?
What kinds of records and documents should be made public? Should there be any client and professional (e.g. attorney or doctor) records or documents that should remain protected and privileged? Is the government allowed any privacy in its internal affairs? And what should we think of people who want to ignore established practice for personal politcal gain?
Solomon was not a jurist. He was a king with absolute power. Bringing in such analogies to compare with judicial nominees is just as bad as the tear jerk story obfuscating the issues that were at hand. The need in consideration of nominees is to avoid such poorly considered tactics of ill repute. These issues need a higher degree of intellectual integrity in the debate.