“What judges should keep in mind is that it’s a choice,” Dunn said. “There’s an ability to interpret the law and you have to decide what perspective you’re coming from. A lot of conservative ones think, ‘We’re going to be close to the law.’ I really suggest you think about the effect on social issues.”
Maybe the documents that give her title to her house, and to any stocks or bonds she owns, or to any pension funds of which she is a beneficiary, should be interpreted by the courts with regard to social justice considerations...
ReplyDeleteDunn, like many, has a hard time with the difference between the roles of a court and a legislature. Her argument is about an unhappy impact, and should be solved by passing laws, not pretending the existing laws say things they don't say.
ReplyDeleteI really suggest you think about the effect on social issues.
ReplyDeleteThere's this that's part also of Dunn said:
This judge has no understanding beyond the law of how her words will impact survivors.
Under our Constitution--see, for instance Art I, Sect 1--judges cannot think about "effect[s] on social issues;" they can only think about what the law says. Nor is it possible for judges to have any judicially actionable "understanding beyond the law:" their scope is the particular law before them.
All else is a political consideration and belongs solely to the political branches of our government and to We the People. Judges may not--cannot--legitimately make law or (re)interpret law to suit their own agendas. Nor is justice their ken; that, too, is a political consideration, solely addressable by our political actors.
Eric Hines
"...under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 86 Stat. 373, codified as 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., based on the formula first set out in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999)"
ReplyDeleteSo for almost 20 years the Administrative State, Dept. of Social Justice, has been waging war and using a skin suit made of Title IX to accomplish their objectives, none of them legal. And, although everybody knew it in real time, it's taken this long to begin a course correction - mostly because of the legally incurious, passive support of policy makers all the way up the chain, neatly deflecting any adversarial action. Amazing... and how many young lives have been tragically broken by this madness, treated as acceptable casualties? Onward, Comrades! Onward, with the Great March Forward!