Rick Perry insists ‘justice system is color blind’ after Zimmerman verdict

[QueEx]

There's a reason, as you know, attorneys try to get what they think will be favorable juries. If the justice system was "blind", it wouldn't matter who sat on juries. It wouldn't who sat on the bench. But we know it does.

Always the observant !

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Always the observant !

 

[Greed]

I wouldn't presume to know what is in Perry's mind.

I don't know why. He readily says what he believes, and we have the evidence of his 13-year administration.

What I stated are just the facts: humans administer the law, therefore, the law is invested with human failings. Hence, it is only as blind as the vision of whoever it is at the time administering the law.

You're admitting to degrees of blindness that differ between the application and the ideal, which makes them unequal. I pointed out that they can only be equal if you believe the way you apply the ideal is how you define the ideal. I don't adhere to a subjective and fluid idea of justice.

Absolute? How?

Absolute in the way the earth revolves around the sun, no matter how man's perception of that relationship differed over time. We were wrong until we were right, but what was right always was.

Justice is. We currently have an idea of Justice, but that is independent to the actually rightness that is Justice.

Assuming, arguendo, that "rights are owed at birth" (which rights are those; is that bundle of rights complete at birth; do they not change as laws are changed; or, are you relying upon some ' unwritten' natural law ). Even if the black-letter law is somehow written in stone, the facts to which the law would have to be applied are not. That is, human conduct is not static and there is just bound to be conduct not covered by or, perhaps, not even contemplated by your static law.

If I understand you correctly, what you're proposing is bound to fail because of a lack of elasticity. Hence, the present-day and age-old dispute regarding the U.S. Constitution: does it live, breathe and is subject interpretive adjustment with evolution or does it remain static??? If static, arguably, all present-day guns possessed by owners more advanced than muzzle loaders are unprotected by the 2nd Amendment.

The rights owed at birth are the rights associated with your nature as a human to express yourself and ensure the continuation of your own life. They are complete at birth despite the inability to use them all at birth. They define your humanity, so any law that looks to undermine your humanity is evil and is in the realm of injustice. Many people have written what I wrote and is only "unwritten" by every government that has ever existed on this earth.

You also don't need a total understanding of every way, shape, or form someone may apply those rights to achieve a just and moral justice system. Every law for humans needs to be written within the context of facilitating a human's nature. The elasticity shouldn't exist within the principle but instead in the details. The law needs to be fluid as it takes into account new cultures (new immigrants wanting to practice some tradition that may clash with human rights ideals), new products, new forms of expression, etc.

I don't agree with everything in the U.S. Constitution, and I've said before the second amendment is probably the worse written portion of it. It was supposed to reinforce the idea of self-defense, whether originally for a state or an individual, but it was written in a specific way then passed off as a principle. It's like if the right to free speech only meant verbal talking and freedom of press only meant newspapers.

The constitution needs to be considered fluid because it's a badly written document full of details being passed off as guiding principles. That's why the current system restricts activities that aren't a contradiction to the human rights I stated earlier. Locking people up on prostitution or non-violent drug offenses is an injustice but allowable under a fluid idea of Justice that is meant to reflect current societal norms.

Who said the system was perfect ??? What and where located is the perfect system ??? You're arguing here an extension of your pure free-market theories that have not been shown to exist anywhere, either.

A perfect justice system would be consistent with human freedom. No human has every been free on this earth. A perfect justice system doesn't exist anywhere, and will never exist as long as humans don't want to be free.

Unfortunately, you characterize that as "pure free-market theories." That means it would be reasonable for me to assert that anyone that doesn't believe in "pure free-market theories" is anti-freedom.

 

[QueEx]

What I stated are just the facts: humans administer the law, therefore, the law is invested with human failings. Hence, it is only as blind as the vision of whoever it is at the time administering the law.

You're admitting to degrees of blindness that differ between the application and the ideal, which makes them unequal. I pointed out that they can only be equal if you believe the way you apply the ideal is how you define the ideal. I don't adhere to a subjective and fluid idea of justice.

Admitting to degrees of blindness? Aren't we all aware that each individual is, in some degree, unique and different ???

I don't really follow your "application and definition of the ideal" concept but I am certain that no two people see everything exactly same -- and that anytime human judgment comes into play, the result from one matter to the next is likely to differ based upon the baggage of the humans making decisions. Hence, justice, opinion, viewpoints, etc., are all subject to be different depending upon the way those making the judgment view the matter, relative to themselves, at that particular time.

If you want fairness, justice, etc., -- society itself must congeal around a definition of those things and strive ardently to attain them. In the meantime, until we move closer to common ground about each other (especially racially) we will continue to have juries that render decisions like the one in Sanford, Florida that those like many of them will cheer and those like many of us, will abhor.

I will comment on other matters raised in your reply above, but right now, gotta geau !

 

[QueEx]

Rick Perry insists ‘justice system is color blind’ after Zimmerman verdict

​

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas Is Indicted on Charge of Abuse of Power . . . now, lets see how long he continues to insist that the ‘justice system is color blind’ . . .