Saturday, March 19, 2005
has been decided on "oral, unwitnessed representations". Yet, that is the law as applies in this case. It may suck. But it is the law. It can be changed in the future. But it is the law.
We conservatives have rightly ridiculed liberals and their allies in the judiciary for ignoring the clearly written law in favor of their version of what they'd like the law to be (Roe-vs-Wade, Lawrence, juvenile executions). Yet, as Levin, who hasn't refrained from name-calling in the past, so clearly shows.... we're just doing that because we don't like the outcome, not because we are so committed to following thee law... as it is written.
Following a principle means nothing if we're willing to drop it the first time it results in something that we don't like. If we believe in the rule of law, we have to be willing to let murderers walk because we don't have the evidence to convict. If we believe in the capitalism, we have to accept that not all will do equally well. If we believe in following the law, then we have to be willing to let her husband (the a**hole that he is) make the decision... because that is what the law says.
Are we conservatives..... or just liberals wanting different things?
And, for those interested, is my longer post on the matter...