Can Someone Clarify Me ?

Sorry for the mishap today in class, unfortunately I ate something that made me me ill. I apologize for the interruption however, I would like to be caught up on what I missed in class. When I left out we were on the subject of discrimination. From what I understand, The Supreme Court does not agree with discrimination amongst race. On the contrary, Corporate America does agree with affirmative action because it benefits them economically. In my absence did we discuss how this could be related to people being rational maximizers of their satisfactions (Posner). But where I began to get confused with is the theory of law as integrity and interpretation. I will read other blogs to review other ideas. Please comment to inform me about what I missed and others about the readings.

While in class going over Hart and Dworkin there were two questions that I had wrote down in my book that I did not ask out loud, they were:

Can a principle be equated as some form of morality? 

and 

Can a principle diverge from law and be in favor of morality?

I ask my first question because it is obvious that Hart would reject the idea of principle being a form of morality. To Hart the proper place for morality in law is in making the law not in judging it, yet when some decisions are made in cases they come to those ends by means of a moral process. So then is principle still not relevant to morality in this case?

Unlike Hart, Dworkin would rather appeal to the principle and not the rule. I came to my second question because I was looking up the term principle and words like accepted, truth, and right conduct were used to characterize the word principle. All the above terms can be in relation to morals and morality ... which lead me to ask myself where does the line between the the two stand? Which lead me to my second question. 

If you have an answer for me please provide one ... If you have your own questions or opinions to add please do so as well.

Why Cant We be Fully Heard?

If the prime purpose of the rule of law is to rule off-limits to certain deep ideas of the right or goo, how can change occur?

In the rule of law, high- level theories happen to have been taken to be too hubristic or sectarian, yet they are what is needed to implement drastic change at some point or another in a society. Civil War, the Women's right Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement are abstract ideas that fight for more than just one ideal cause although one cause may seem to be high lighted. They are not very favorable in law and yet they have helped define and ratify certain aspects of our constitution. If these rules of law were made more general and less confusing all these abstract ideas would not have to be floating around in our society to gain recognition.

Do you think our country purposely enforce these rules of law to put a veil of silence over our society? Why or why not?

All sorts needed

Reasoning from case to case may hold imperfections but what change would then occur in society if everyone followed the law as written? In order for the laws to be better efficient there should be well rounded people available to interpret or adhere to the law as is. However, if reasoning from case to case is an imperfection than solely adhering to the law is an imperfection as well. This is because it is possible that by completely adhering to the law you may ignore something circumstantial to the case and make the wrong judgement.

Personally I think that in order for the laws to be efficient there should be a balance of both kind of decision making. However I think it imperative that whoever is making the decision knows when, why and how they came to their decision.

Which method do you think could lead to a better decision; following the law as is or having the ability to interpret the law for specific situations?