The "law" is a racket, kind of like Wall Street's derivative scams, and the conclusions in both are often incoherent garbage. In the former's case matters of judicial contradictions. In the latter's case the incoherent reasoning that the debt can be paid for by expanding the debt to more parties internationally who seek returns on purchasing the debt of others, and that this can go on forever without any negative consequences, particularly when many of the original subjects incurring the debt can not maintain their obligations to make x sum payments on their debt.BenMcLean wrote:I'm not an anarchist. I'm an American Constitutionalist. But I have adopted a position which sounds alot like anarchism as seems to be the logical consequence of taking Constitutional Originalism / Declarationism seriously.
My position on Constitutional law in the United States is that all decisions after Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (and possibly some earlier ones too) are a complete joke. Once you have accepted "emanations from penumbras" as a coherent argument then all text is a legal wildcard which can mean literally anything the wizards in black robes want it to mean and all decisions are purely an expression of the arbitrary will of the judges and are not affected in any way by anything actually from the text.
Law is dead and we have killed it. There is no law.
I am an atheist in regards to the false god whose superstitious theology you were taught in law school.
But this is not quite the same thing as anarchism. Anarchism posits that we ought to abolish all government. I am positing the non-existence of the rule of law: that we are in fact ruled by arbitrary despots contrary to popular belief. This is descriptive, where anarchism is prescriptive.
Today, I got to thinking that my view of the current state of Constitutional law needs a new term: "legal non-cognitivism." It's the philosophy of law analogue to ethical non-cognitivism in meta-ethics and theological non-cognitivism in philosophy of religion.
Ethical non-cognitivism posits that all moral language is incoherent, or in other words that all prescriptive claims are incoherent in the sense that they cannot be reasoned about. Theological non-cognitivism posits that the language we use to discuss God or ideas about God and/or religion are meaningless or incoherent in the sense that they cannot be reasoned about. In short, theological non-cognitivism means, "All religious language is incoherent."
I don't believe in either moral or theological non-cognitivsm. But I think I am starting to believe in legal non-cognitivism, the belief that, "All legal language is incoherent." However, I don't want to totally commit in that way to all legal language without exception. I am specifically thinking of Constitutional arguments in the context of the government of the United States. I am a non-cognitivist in regard to Constitutional language working from any post-Griswold precedent. Words don't mean anything after Griswold.
This doesn't mean I think we should abolish all government: it just means I think some large part of legal language is incoherent.
I've Googled the phrase "legal non-cognitivism" and haven't found this anywhere. Does this view have a name that I'm not aware of, or do I get to name it? Most of the time when I think of an idea, I will find out it already has a name in philosophy. This would be the first time I've struck a concept which wouldn't have a name if I really do have an unnamed concept here. Does anyone know if this already has a name?
By the way, this term "legal non-cognitivist" (if it really is something new) wouldn't refer only to people who think legal language post-Griswold is incoherent, but to anyone who thinks any category of legal language is incoherent. There would of course be different flavors of legal non-cognitivism for different categories of legal language thought to be incoherent. So my legal non-cognitivism is of a relatively very limited kind compared to what's conceptually possible. And I hope I have distinguished this view sufficiently from anarchism to show that it is something conceptually distinct from anarchism.
I would love to respect the rule of law: I just don't think that the arbitrary rule we've got now counts as law.
I agree the US Supreme Court Justices are like queens and kings and a college of Catholic Cardinals. They are biased people that are socially and politically biased and pressured to make pontifical claims and decisions from their thrones no matter how absurd. They enjoy the aristocratic privilege of being incoherent in how they apply their biased interpretation of the highest law of the land (supposedly highest law of the land, in fact the US Constitution is worthless, and the oligarch and CIA controlled media controls the minds and opinions of the US public as well as its aristocratic Supreme Court Justices.)
I just briefly looked up that Griswold case you provided. Personally, I view birth control use as a private matter. But I don't think my personal beliefs--on that or other issues--should determine how I rule (if I were a judge) on a court case. My obligation if I am a judge is to determine things based upon the law. Do not confuse that with me implying that all laws are justice or morally right. I believe the exact opposite. Look, I'm half black, visibly brown, and would not be mistaken for white in the culture and society of the USA. But suppose for arguments sake that the US Constitution stated in rather clear terms that all black people must ride in the back seats of all public transportation and are forbidden from riding in areas deemed "the front." Even as a half black judge my obligation would be to decide court cases based on the law and not based on how stupid I think the law is.
Of course, I could choose to be a rebel judge and render my decision based on justice and what is morally right, and in opposition to the law. I believe, at least in certain cases, that would be the better decision in the eyes of God.
But there is an aspect of Common Law which makes it possible and likely that two lawyers on opposing sides of a legal battle will make claims to interpreting the law differently. That being that laws are often written in very vague terms. It allows for lawyers to get their "hustle" on. To get a truly guilty man to walk free at the end of trial or to send a truly innocent man to prison.
Having gone through the legal system I am persuaded "justice" is bought, paid for in the USA. No cash? Odds greatly increase no justice for you.