Posted on 03/30/2005 3:41:00 AM PST by The Great Yazoo
"Even so, the Designated Hitter IS a commie plot!"
Yes, but the "esteem" of poor hitters hasn't been further damaged. LOL
But they don't change them in the middle of a game to favor one team over another. The umpires aren't supposed to decide in the middle of the World Series that the Red Sox batters get four strikes, while the Cardinals only get two.
The role of the courts is like the umpires, they determine the facts and apply the rules. It is not the role of the courts or the umpires to make the rules.
"But they don't change them in the middle of a game to favor one team over another."
So you would say the Terri game has been played and the outcome of the game determined. Her parent's repeated returns to the court is for the purpose of getting a ref/umpire to overturn the games outcome?
"The role of the courts is like the umpires, they determine the facts and apply the rules."
Seems as if most if not all facts and rules of the case have been upheld?
The difference is that the rules do not change during the game.
"The difference is that the rules do not change during the game."
When does the death penalty game end?
(In case you're wondering, I thought the SC erred by making the changes overiding state law.)
Please explain for me the connection and relevance between the NFL making changes to the rules between seasons an death penalty cases?
I wasn't refering to the Schiavo case in particular. The Schiavo case, it seems to me, may well be a horrible travesty. I am reluctant to make any pronouncements because it is hard to come by the facts in the case. [If I told you what I think about Dabs Greer and Micheal "Scott Peterson" Schiavo it would get me banned.] The presentation of facts seems to be terribly colored by people's viewpoints. It is further complicated by the fact that certain difficult medical decisions are deliberately left to the discretion of family of an incapacitated person. [Terry Schiavo is clearly in no position to effectively express her preferences.]
The idea of "Rule of Law" in this country is that the rules of the "game" (No, you can't win, you can't tie and you can't not play) are made by a process that accounts for the wishs of all the participants. (Accounts for, not fulfills.) We call this "democracy", of which constitutional representative democracy seems to be the most successful and practical form.
Laws will always be imperfectly administered by fallible human beings. Injustices will occur. Recognizing this is part of growing up. The immature will rage against "the system", often from the editorial offices of the New York Times. The smug and self-interested will assume that it cannot happen to them, or look for ways to game the system. Responsible adults try to find ways to improve the workings of the law.
One problem with any system of laws is that laws made by legislatures are most accutely subject to the law of unintended consequences. The classic example is goverment imposed price controls. Price controls always lead to surpluses and shortages. Either you get gas lines or the government warehouses rotting cheese.
The liberals understand that it is impossible to advance their agenda by democratic means, by taking into account the wishs of everyone, so they try to short circuit the process with judicial "quick fixes". This worked for them in Roe v. Wade, and they've smelled blood in the water ever since. They should not lose sight of the fact that the original quick fix was Dredd Scott.
Nice summary on the law.
I suppose what we would hope to accomplish, is that the law should be beneficial to the most people yet guards against the tyranny of the majority as in the case of slavery.
To those ends there will always be some person or some interest group that feels the harms them.
When the gov't tries to be flexible we end up with a bizillion page tax code! LOL
"Please explain for me the connection and relevance between the NFL making changes to the rules between seasons an death penalty cases?"
Rules in a game ....rules in the game of life.
Some think the Constitution is flexible and open to interpretation. Imagine trying to complete a game if the rules can be changed in the middle of the game.
Conversely at the end of the season the NFL does change rules. Perhaps the Constitution should be subject to change?
Changing the rules is fine as long as it doesn't happen during the course of play.
Perhaps the Constitution should be subject to change?
The Constitution is subject to change and always has been and always will be. Its called the amendment process.
"The Constitution is subject to change and always has been and always will be. Its called the amendment process."
So in the absence of a definition of "cruel and unusual punishiment", the courts will decide, the states will decide, the US Congress will decide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.