Don't shoot the messenger (Re: 1 Question to Dr. Froomkin...) (fwd)

Forwarded message:

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:38:43 GMT From: Adam Back Subject: Don't shoot the messenger (Re: 1 Question to Dr. Froomkin...)

It appears to me that your comments to Michael are based on your views on the undesirability of the way the US judicial system operates in practice today. Michael is merely offering his expert opinion on how various questions would likely be interpreted by the current legal system.

Ok. It's not just the US judicial system, include the executive and legislative branches as well.

Screams of "and you think this is a good idea?" and "but what about the constitution" are misdirected; I strongly suspect each of the three posters I mention above share your distaste for the redefinition of meanings and blatant disregard for the fairly clear meanings of the constitution.

You propose speaking softly will resolve the issue? If so why speak at all since that is the softest speech of all. Your position seems to be that if a question is hard then it should be avoided because it might offend the sensibilities? You propose that justice would be better served if it were all masked in innuendo and euphamism? Perhaps, that is no reason not to take them to task when they expound a position using fallacious arguments. Further, Dr. Froomkin is a law professor who *trains* future lawyers. If anyone should be held to task for their actions and views it is those who are deciding what tomorrows world will look like and the people charged with those decisions. There is a fundamental ethical responsibility for conservatism and literalism in those enterprises that simply isn't present in most other 'jobs'. We aren't playing horseshoes or handgrenades - close enough is not good enough. There is a fundamental difference between Lawyers, Doctors, & Soldiers and the vast majority of other human endeavours. In short, they are given the lattitude to decide events that directly and immediatley impact human life. Engineers, Pilots, hamburger flippers, etc. are seldom in a position as a matter of course of their practicing their vocation to decide whether a person will live or die. Because of this exclusion from commen behavioral limitations they should receive *less* latitude and trust in their actions instead of more (which is what is happening today). Ulitmately, when a lawyer fails in their duty to use *every* legal recourse a person sits in a room and gets to listen to the hiss of cyanide drop into the acid. When these people make a mistake there is no 'fixing' it. Sometimes "I'm sorry" just doesn't cut it. It is entirely too important to be complacent or trust without verification (thanks to Pres. Reagan for that one). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We'll just have to agree to disagree here. If they take the job they take the responsibility to answer for their actions to any and every citizen that asks for it. However inconvenient, uncomfortable, or rude the question may be posed because the *next* citizen they ask to trust them may be the one asking the question. Never forget that but by the grace of God there go you. If you want to trust your future to somebody who 'shuts down' because somebody says "spin doctor bullshit" or strenously defends their views be my guest. Me, I want a MUCH more mature and determined individual handling me and my decendants future. I want to experience that strength of conviction from them not a yellow streak. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|