- 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: Question for judges and attorneys...Where does your morality (if any) come into play ?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's like saying a mathematician has to rely on morality to say 1+2 = 3, once the rules of 1+1 = 2, are established.
No, it's not like that at all. Because morality had nothing to do with the rules of math dictating that 1 + 1 = 2.
It's like the analogy I posted above regarding the practice of law enforcement reflecting constitutional values.
1
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:53 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The profession established rules of ethical conduct
In a legislative/regulatory function.
Once the rules are created, they are the rules. Morality has left the building.
quote:
You can be disbarred for doing things that aren't codified or illegal.
Yes, for violating the rules, not morality standards.
quote:
I get it that you're not going to admit you were wrong
I'm not wrong, and I even realized this issue and made a post clarifying it to explain the logical missteps being taken.
quote:
. Does the practice of law enforcement (theoretically, when done according to the rules) reflect the constitutional values that the country was founded upon?
"Law enforcement" means what? Policing, or practicing law?
Because policing? No. They set the Constitution on fire decades ago in that realm.
The practice of law? Yes. Clearly. The concept of representing repugnant defendants existed when the Constitution was written (and thousands of years prior).
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:54 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, it's not like that at all. Because morality had nothing to do with the rules of math dictating that 1 + 1 = 2.
Not all laws require morality. Bad assumption there.
The vast majority have nothing to do with morality, in fact.
You're trying to frame an argument and it's not working.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:56 am to Fencepimp
quote:
ately, local judges ethics follow the color of their skin
Lately?? lol
Got bad news for ya
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The vast majority have nothing to do with morality, in fact.
quote:
in fact.
Nope, but I thought that’s not what this thread is about.
You deserve the shite you get here.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:01 am to Flats
quote:
You deserve the shite you get here.
He's very dishonest.
I put him in cubbies territory now. Nothing he says makes much sense anymore, he's on some dumb vendetta.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:02 am to Flats
quote:
Nope, but I thought that’s not what this thread is about.
The existence of the laws and rules are what he thread is about. I did not reference Creation in that post.
Also already brought this up previously in the thread.
Go pick out 100 random regulations from the CFR. It's unlikely one of them has anything to do with morality
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:04 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The profession established rules of ethical conduct as well as the legislature.
Because of morality, or because of sustainment and practicality?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Go pick out 100 random regulations from the CFR. It's unlikely one of them has anything to do with morality
Why do they exist at all?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It comprises the morality-based construct of many rules you noted.
That construction isn't the practice of law
quote:Oh my. What an obscenely stupid quip. Sorry, but come on.
This is more a myth for laymen.
quote:Reported?
Unethical behavior, if found, is reported.
Well that's scary stuff. For getting caught withholding Brady material, or deliberately causing a mistrial, or misleading the court, someone might issue a report? ... perhaps followed by a threat of scolding if the behavior continues? Yeah, those mechanisms have obviously reined in scum dwellers like Weissman, Smith, and Elias
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Irrelevant.
The rules of practice are set. They require no morality to follow.
This discussion is predicated on them not being followed.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:16 am to loogaroo
quote:
Question for judges and attorneys...Where does your morality (if any) come into play ?
You still haven't received a morally honest answer yet?
8 pages in?
There ain't one.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:16 am to Flats
quote:
Why do they exist at all?
Government excess
I can use a different example. The criminal code in Louisiana is a book about two and a half to three inches thick. The entire set of revised statutes other than that probably comprises about 12 to 14 similarly sized books. The code of civil procedure is another book approximately the same size. There's also the civil code, UCC, etc.
The only book where you're really going to find legislation of morality is going to be in the criminal code.
Like I said specifically earlier, I'd love someone to explain the morality of a 30-day response time for request for admissions.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It comprises the morality-based construct of many rules you noted.
And we're talking about the application of that construct not the creation of the construct or the construct itself
quote:
What an obscenely stupid quip. Sorry, but come on
It's true, despite, apparently, not fitting into your preconceived worldview
quote:
Well that's scary stuff. For getting caught withholding Brady material, or deliberately causing a mistrial, or misleading the court, someone might issue a report? ..
No you report it to the disciplinary arm of whatever body the violation occurred within
But then it's up to the disciplinary arm to investigate, suggest a sanction, and then ultimately it's up to whatever the court over that body is to make a final decision.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:20 am to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
You still haven't received a morally honest answer yet?
Individual morality is only important if youre not a lawyer, apparently.
I believe most autists and sociopaths have no personal intuition, at all.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 9:22 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:22 am to NC_Tigah
Inherently they have no morals. That's why they practice law.
They're able to actually sleep well because they're soulless.
They're able to actually sleep well because they're soulless.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:23 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Individual morality is only important if youre not a lawyer, apparently.
I believe most autists and sociopaths have no personal intuition, at all.
Most have an answer why it's NOT needed.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 9:27 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:24 am to hogcard1964
quote:
because they're soulless.
lack of any individual code of morality.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I hope you're being deliberately thick here.
No you report it to the disciplinary arm of whatever body the violation occurred within
But then it's up to the disciplinary arm to investigate, suggest a sanction, and then ultimately it's up to whatever the court over that body is to make a final decision.
Did Binger behave ethically in the Rittenhouse trial?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 9:26 am to loogaroo
I think your questions assumes a predicate that does not or should not exist. Justice does not and should be governed by the morals of attorneys or judges, but rather by applying facts to the law. Lawyers are not fact finders. Even when a lawyer knows his client is guilty, his ethical obligation require him to keep his client from perjuring himself on the stand. Likewise, it is the lawyer's job to ensure the state meets its burden of proof and that due process protection are met. Sometimes this is simply hand holding someone through the process with very little opportunity for advocacy.
Judges are to administer the law fairly and evenly without consideration of personal passions or morality.
Admittedly, all this is indeed easier said than done and the jobs are not for everyone. If an attorney does not believe he can represent a criminal client without interjecting his or her own morality into the equation then he or she should not practice criminal law - - - and that is why I choose not to - - - but Gold Bless those who can and do because it is one of the most important jobs out there.
Judges are to administer the law fairly and evenly without consideration of personal passions or morality.
Admittedly, all this is indeed easier said than done and the jobs are not for everyone. If an attorney does not believe he can represent a criminal client without interjecting his or her own morality into the equation then he or she should not practice criminal law - - - and that is why I choose not to - - - but Gold Bless those who can and do because it is one of the most important jobs out there.
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News