@kellyjay saidIt can only be considered a political one.
If a law or court ruling can only be considered a good one if it happens to agree with liberal minds or conservative minds, is that truly a righteous law or ruling or can it only be considered a political one?
The concept of ‘righteous’ is too subjective to be of any practical use
29 Apr 23
@kellyjay saidRightious is an opinion.
If a law or court ruling can only be considered a good one if it happens to agree with liberal minds or conservative minds, is that truly a righteous law or ruling or can it only be considered a political one?
A court ruling is (supposed to be) a judgement upon a law. So, basically void of opinion: either you broke the law or you didn’t (in most court systems. Scotland, for example, has a third ruling).
Laws are per definition political. Politicians make laws.
@shavixmir saidLaws put restrictions on behavior, are you saying all laws are political, therefore none of them are righteous being good, not bad, they are just what the powers that be say at any given time? So every struggle to change laws is not because it is the right thing to do, the struggles are always just because this is what we want when we want it?
Rightious is an opinion.
A court ruling is (supposed to be) a judgement upon a law. So, basically void of opinion: either you broke the law or you didn’t (in most court systems. Scotland, for example, has a third ruling).
Laws are per definition political. Politicians make laws.
29 Apr 23
@kellyjay saidSort of. Yes.
Laws put restrictions on behavior, are you saying all laws are political, therefore none of them are righteous being good, not bad, they are just what the powers that be say at any given time? So every struggle to change laws is not because it is the right thing to do, the struggles are always just because this is what we want when we want it?
29 Apr 23
@athousandyoung saidNot sure your explanation is any better, what rights?
If it doesn't violate anyone's rights it is righteous.
@kellyjay saidOur self-evident inalienable rights. The ones referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Not sure your explanation is any better, what rights?
Your question presupposes rights. You ask about righteousness. Ask yourself what you mean by rights.
30 Apr 23
@kellyjay saidWho it 'agrees with' is SO irrelevant. It stands on its own. What kind of question is that ?!? And the second part of your paragraph does not make sense. Tell us the ruling and we will discern whether it is a political ruling or not.
If a law or court ruling can only be considered a good one if it happens to agree with liberal minds or conservative minds, is that truly a righteous law or ruling or can it only be considered a political one?
30 Apr 23
@KellyJay
Right? Right now SCOTUS is totally political and it is not easy to see a way out where they actually do their job as if they were independent but not now. There is zero oversight on the supreme court, they say 'we can do our own ethics investigations'. Sure and I have a GREAT bridge for sale in Brooklyn...
30 Apr 23
@kellyjay saidLaws not only put restrictions on behaviour. They can protect behaviour, open up safety, etc.
How do we arrive at sort of yes, wouldn't it just be yes?
Hence, “my sort of yes” .
But creating safety can also be felt like restricting behaviour (in many cases).
Take seatbelts, or workplace health & safety rules.
The basis remains (in a democracy):
People vote for political parties.
Political parties make laws.
The police uphold these laws.
Judges judge if the law has been upheld.
Rightiousness is acting in accord with religious or moral codes (which can be laws).
So, say a biblical text states you have to stone unmarried women who get pregnant. It would be rightious to do so.
Yet, in most countries’ laws it is illegal. So not stoning these women would be equally rightious.
So, unless the moral code, law and religious law add up, then abiding by the law, and judgements there of, will not be completely rightious; depending on who’s viewing the matter.
However, judging by your reaction, you have another point you’re trying to make. It feels like you’re hoping to bait someone or something.
Sorry, if my answer is not that which you seek, if my feelings be correct on this last issue, naturally.
30 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidWhen a court makes a ruling and the opening line of the story is it is filled with either conservatives or so liberals does that matter? I agree with you it is the specifics that matter but this isn't how stories are written, the Democrats pass this, and the Republicans pass that the specifics rarely seem to count except at a high superficial level as details are not as important as who did it.
Who it 'agrees with' is SO irrelevant. It stands on its own. What kind of question is that ?!? And the second part of your paragraph does not make sense. Tell us the ruling and we will discern whether it is a political ruling or not.
@kellyjay saidMy point above, ...it does not matter, conservatives or liberals. Justice is blind.
When a court makes a ruling and the opening line of the story is it is filled with either conservatives or so liberals does that matter? I agree with you it is the specifics that matter but this isn't how stories are written, the Democrats pass this, and the Republicans pass that the specifics rarely seem to count except at a high superficial level as details are not as important as who did it.
But, look at Sonhouse post today on the Democracy thread, Now THAT is an example of the schism of libs and conservatives. He writes in a liberal mode about how great Biden Infrastructure bill is, and he (Sonhouse) ,, like all libs, is oblivious to the hell and misery at the Border, and the overflowing results landing in our once-sovereign land.
Could it be that libs like Shav, et al, wish this on us? They want the USA to self destruct?