- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How did the framers understand or define justice?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:44 pm to dickkellog
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:44 pm to dickkellog
quote:
let me tell you what it doesn't mean everyone gets the same amount of money and the same amount of stuff, which is what you want it to mean.
This is the definitive answer.
0
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:45 pm to 4cubbies
So currently am illegal housekeeper is in fact illegal social construct and all
Is she still terrified and in hiding?
Is she still terrified and in hiding?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:50 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
He argues that shouldn't be dependent on one's income or social position. He talks about "the veil of ignorance" which decision makers should be covered in when determining principles of justice, which requires choosing principles of justice without knowing our own social or financial position, or how we would personally benefit from the chosen form of justice.
I think I see where this is going and I do agree. Many here would read the opening post and say "oh my lord, another argument for restorative justice". Even I was guilty of that. What this is about is more about the injustice that happens when you have enough capital to game the system?
Am I right on that?
If so, I can get behind the idea. Those with the means can get away with almost anything. Not everything, but more than I or you can. This is infact not justice.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:55 pm to UtahCajun
The fix is all lawyers can only charge a set amount
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:55 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
What this is about is more about the injustice that happens when you have enough capital to game the system?
Am I right on that?
If so, I can get behind the idea. Those with the means can get away with almost anything. Not everything, but more than I or you can. This is infact not justice.
"Everyone" backs this idea.
The problem is that "everyone" is also human and if there are extra benefits ($$$$) to making justice blind to crimes, injustice, etc.
John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People"
But then we started importing thousands of people who never fit this criteria ... as well, we have turned our backs on both of these principles in all aspects of our society ...
But muh ... separation of Church and State ...
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:56 pm to 4cubbies
Honestly, no bullshite??? If, in our present day, we approached justice as our founding fathers did(minus all the progressive, liberal idiocy)folks would be much more reluctant to break laws.
Especially those in elected office.
Pretty much the opposite of how the OP views things. She NEVER would have survived when shite was real.
Like this:
Especially those in elected office.
Pretty much the opposite of how the OP views things. She NEVER would have survived when shite was real.
Like this:
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 2:58 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
What this is about is more about the injustice that happens when you have enough capital to game the system?
Am I right on that?
Kind of, but it isn't limited to just capital. Advantages could be through a relationship, proximity to something, some random stroke of good luck, etc. etc. He's mostly concerned with arbitrary advantages and disadvantages... things people possess or suffer through no choice of their own, like being born into wealth, poverty, poor health, or an influential family.
quote:
If so, I can get behind the idea. Those with the means can get away with almost anything. Not everything, but more than I or you can. This is infact not justice.
Yep. Except I would replace "means" with "certain advantages."
He acknowledges that arbitrary advantages will always exist. He's trying to outline how society should deal with them. Which inequalities can a just society legitimately permit?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:01 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Honestly, no bullshite??? If, in our present day, we approached justice as our founding fathers did(minus all the progressive, liberal idiocy)folks would be much more reluctant to break laws.
You sure about that? They were deeply skeptical of unchecked government power in criminal prosecutions, which is reflected in the Bill of Rights.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:04 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
quote:
Honestly, no bullshite??? If, in our present day, we approached justice as our founding fathers did(minus all the progressive, liberal idiocy)folks would be much more reluctant to break laws.
You sure about that? They were deeply skeptical of unchecked government power in criminal prosecutions, which is reflected in the Bill of Rights
I never said folks rights should be violated. But right is right and wrong is wrong. It's not hard to distinguish.
The politically correct cancer within our society, culture, and legal system is what makes it seem to be complicated.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:05 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
He acknowledges that arbitrary advantages will always exist. He's trying to outline how society should deal with them. Which inequalities can a just society legitimately permit
So, to answer you original question
"How did the framers understand or define justice?"
They interpreted it as blind. For true justice, in our courts, justice has to be blind to all of the inequalities. Advantages and disadvantages must not dictate the outcome or the penalty.
We can go ahead and revisit this when justice becomes blind, but I do not see that it ever truly was and may never be. We as flawed animals judge others every minute of everyday, even when we are giving an honest try not to do so. The judgement encroaches into justice.
Now, for what is justice outside of our judicial system, that would be a discussion for someone more versed in sociology. I would read through that thread with a total lack of understanding, but still with a great level of enjoyment.
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:06 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
You sure about that? They were deeply skeptical of unchecked government power in criminal prosecutions, which is reflected in the Bill of Rights.
Liberal judges are the issue now
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
things people possess or suffer through no choice of their own, like being born into wealth, poverty, poor health, or an influential family
There it is. Why not just ask the question/topic you actually wanted to discuss instead of playing word games?
The question he really wanted to ask is if resources should be distributed equally in the name of fairness. Thats the question being asked in the original post.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:09 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
We can go ahead and revisit this when justice becomes blind, but I do not see that it ever truly was and may never be. We as flawed animals judge others every minute of everyday, even when we are giving an honest try not to do so. The judgement encroaches into justice.
Now, for what is justice outside of our judicial system, that would be a discussion for someone more versed in sociology. I would read through that thread with a total lack of understanding, but still with a great level of enjoyment
Meh.... again, you attempt to complicate this topic. Our justice system isn't perfect, but its as close as we can get here on Earth. Probably the best we "animals " can do until we pass onto the Promise Land with Jesus.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:10 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
They interpreted it as blind.
The 3/5 Compromise enters the chat.
I would say the Framers probably leaned into natural rights.
quote:
Now, for what is justice outside of our judicial system, that would be a discussion for someone more versed in sociology. I would read through that thread with a total lack of understanding, but still with a great level of enjoyment.
I think it's a conversation for everyone. We all have ideas and opinions.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:11 pm to 4cubbies
Justice is revenge with a set of agreed upon rules around it.
Revenge is an absolute necessity for civilization.
Revenge is an absolute necessity for civilization.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:15 pm to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
The question he really wanted to ask is if resources should be distributed equally in the name of fairness.
Not resources, advantages. Not whether every advantage should be eliminated, but whether institutions should reinforce, ignore, or compensate for arbitrary advantages.
For example, should the son of a prominent judge who gets arrested for repeated DWIs get off every time because of who his father is? How should society respond if/when that happens?
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:17 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The 3/5 Compromise enters the chat.
Much later and had nothing to do with the justice system.
quote:
I would say the Framers probably leaned into natural rights
Definitely, but natural rights is basis for law, not really justice.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Crime is a social construct.
No. Crime is a violation of private property rights.
Government exists to protect private property rights.
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:22 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Meh.... again, you attempt to complicate this topic
Sorry I complicated things for you my baw.
quote:
Our justice system isn't perfect, but its as close as we can get here on Earth. Probably the best we "animals " can do until we pass onto the Promise Land with Jesus
I wouldn't say the land with a prison population per capita larger than all but three countries is the best. Only El Salvador, Cuba, and Turkmenistan have higher rates of incarceration. Judging by our middle of the road crime rate, if our justice system were really good, we would have middle of the road incarceration rates.
This post was edited on 7/20/26 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 7/20/26 at 3:26 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Much later and had nothing to do with the justice system.
But it had to do with justice. The whole problem of slavery was a grave injustice. I understand that there were a lot of cultural differences that allowed for it to take place and that it was a difficult practice to reign in and eventually remedy, but our framers didn't address it on purpose. I'm not trying to litigate the conditions that allowed it to exist, or how the framers could have handled it better or differently.
quote:Natural rights are rooted in justice. If every person possesses inherent rights, then justice requires respecting those rights by virtue of our humanity, not because a government is threatening to punish us if we don't.
Definitely, but natural rights is basis for law, not really justice.
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News