Posted 6:20 PM by steve

Gee, Beldar's back for only a day or so and already I'm taking exception to something he wrote...

In a post that I otherwise totally agree with, he says he "certainly wouldn't question the integrity of lawyers and judges who'd stretch the law just a little bit..." (emphasis mine).

That's not right. Aren't judges supposed to apply the law as written? Aren't lawyers supposed to NOT stretch the law and NOT stretch the facts? Note: I know you didn't address stretching the facts; nonetheless, as it's done on a not-rare basis, I'm going to complain about it. Stretching the facts is lying. Stretching the law is just as bad.

It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter that the facts of this particular case leaves one wanting to do something for the plaintiff and wanting to punish more than just the piece of dirt who committed the crime. Having to say "we're sorry, but we can't give you what you want" is something that goes with a position of responsibility, whether it be parent, manager or judge. Just because one can do something doesn't make it right to do so.

Isn't part of the reason we're having these fights over the judiciary because judges and lawyers have been too willing to stretch (redefine) the law? And because society has been too willing to allow - perhaps even demanding that - judges and lawyers to do so? In this particular case, as well as (I'm sure) countless other times, Priscilla Owen refused to play along... she stuck to what the law said. Her refusal to jump on that bandwagon is a big part of why she's earned a seat on the federal appeals bench.

It's a shame that the GOP has neither the guts nor the brains to make sure that she does get that seat.


Notwithstanding the above, welcome back Beldar...

|