Backroom Errata

[Strike For The South]

In their ethics it is probably obvious, so they're speaking to a wider issue of what kind of moralities are common in our world and government. It's also the biggest weakness in the position, since it relies less on a structural change and more on having a different kind of society and different people up for the job - obviously a more challenging proposition.

Right they are arguing morality, not legality. Their "get rid of Judges" position is not so much a reform to the legal system as it is the spearhead of a moral world view. It is not surprising the individual who holds the most power within this system draws most of their ire.

It's not a standardizable standard, so the point stands. And they clearly don't trust the empathy of most judges.

If they don't trust judges because of harshness, they should trust juries even less. Judges tend to be much more sympathetic and acquittal prone. The problem is not so much concentrated power within a person as it is a justice system, and a populace, that is overly concerned with punishment. Turning a judges power over to "the people", under current legislative restraints will result in a lot less empathy and humanity.

An atrophied legislature is not the problem of the judicial system. Elect better legislators and everything will follow.

Their point is that "impartial" is an outright myth, while "humane" is concrete but rare. Of course, a Randian might say that mercy is inhumane.

Humane is not anymore concrete than impartial. People are simply more willing to admit their biases rather than their lack (or differing view) of humanity. Why would we even discuss Rand? She's an irrelevant thought exercise for privileged adolescents.

Aren't you missing who did the hard work of advancing desegregation and civil rights ideas in the public sphere? You know it wasn't "white America" as a whole. But I'll grant that it's an empirical question whether there's a spectrum here, in the relationship between judicial efficacy in social change and judicial acknowledgement of social change.

I don't think so. The marches and ideas themselves were very unpopular. What tipped the balance was laws that the NAACP fought for and the distaste for outright violence that began to happen in the 50s and 60s. Scratch that, violence was always happening, there was a tipping point then though. Till, 16th street, Mississippi burning all moved white America while the protests hardened them.