14 May 22
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in his recent [leaked] draft ruling, leant heavily on the scholarship of 17th-century English judge Sir Matthew Hale to underpin his arguments about “unbroken traditions” in American law. According to your religious, philosophical, or moral beliefs, what would be the pros and cons are reviving the norms, values and laws of the 1600s?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122153
@fmf saidIt is Brexit folk lore now, so politics not religion, but still relevant I think:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in his recent [leaked] draft ruling, leant heavily on the scholarship of 17th-century English judge Sir Matthew Hale to underpin his arguments about “unbroken traditions” in American law. According to your religious, philosophical, or moral beliefs, what would be the pros and cons are reviving the norms, values and laws of the 1600s?
It worked, in the short term, for John Bercow when he called up an early 17th century precedent to prevent the elected House of Commons from deciding on the then PM Theresa May’s attempt to hold a third vote on her Brexit withdrawal bill.
However although technically correct, everyone knew it was a ploy and everyone new he was using an ancient precedent to try to scupper the outcome of a democratic vote. As Speaker of the House he was supposed to be non-partisan.
In the long-term Bercow was shown to be a deeply flawed individual who was found to be a corporate bully and banned from the Houses of Parliament for life. He was also the first exiting Speaker [for a long time at least] to not be honoured with a Peerage by a sitting government.
So in answer to the question in your OP, I’d say that how old a tradition, statute or norms are is less relevant than how and when and why they are employed.
15 May 22
@fmf saidTruth is truth, in any century. What was right, moral and of value in the 16th century still is today.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in his recent [leaked] draft ruling, leant heavily on the scholarship of 17th-century English judge Sir Matthew Hale to underpin his arguments about “unbroken traditions” in American law. According to your religious, philosophical, or moral beliefs, what would be the pros and cons are reviving the norms, values and laws of the 1600s?
But for those with an evolutionary mindset that does not hold true.
And for those inclined to sophistry the idea that truth is absolute must be dismissed, and replaced with a barrage of pseudo intellectual claptrap about anything but the truth, as epitomized by the first two posts of this thread.
15 May 22
@josephw saidThanks. What would be the pros and cons of reviving the norms, values and laws of the 1600s? Feel free to be specific.
Truth is truth, in any century. What was right, moral and of value in the 16th century still is today.
But for those with an evolutionary mindset that does not hold true.
And for those inclined to sophistry the idea that truth is absolute must be dismissed, and replaced with a barrage of pseudo intellectual claptrap about anything but the truth, as epitomized by the first two posts of this thread.
18 May 22
@josephw saidAre you high?
Truth is truth, in any century. What was right, moral and of value in the 16th century still is today.
But for those with an evolutionary mindset that does not hold true.
And for those inclined to sophistry the idea that truth is absolute must be dismissed, and replaced with a barrage of pseudo intellectual claptrap about anything but the truth, as epitomized by the first two posts of this thread.
They hung "witches" in the 17th century. Would you really like to see a return to this? Maybe for women who get abortions? Disgusting.
18 May 22
@josephw saida barrage of pseudo-intellectual claptrap about anything but the truth
And for those inclined to sophistry the idea that truth is absolute must be dismissed, and replaced with a barrage of pseudo intellectual claptrap about anything but the truth, as epitomized by the first two posts of this thread.
The OP is a few current affairs facts and a question. I think you are using the term "pseudo-intellectual" incorrectly.