Making Unequal Things Equal Is A Fool's Pursuit....

Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (he was removed from that post several years back for refusing to remove a ten commandments monument from court property) is truly baffled to learn that reality stubbornly refuses to reform to his own personal perception of how things ought to be.

He writes,

Judge Sonia Sotomayor..... Her objectivity immediately became a key question for the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating her for confirmation. Sen. Jeff Sessions noted that the central question should be whether she allows her personal views to taint her judicial decisions.

A common symbol of justice that adorns many courtrooms and law offices in America is that of a robed woman holding the scales of justice and wearing a blindfold. Justice is supposed to "blind" – but what exactly does that mean?

A common symbol of justice that adorns many courtrooms and law offices in America is that of a robed woman holding the scales of justice and wearing a blindfold. Justice is supposed to "blind" – but what exactly does that mean?

Like a lot of White people the poor judge is confounded and confused to learn that people who do not look like him, nor share his heritage (nor are part of his race) do not share his (and his people's) peculiar proclivities for balanced justice.

He stubbornly refuses to accept the fact that the races and genders are profoundly different in their assessment of values and the need for a cold, unbiased, hand in administering them.

He reinforces this when he writes,

But historically the judge was impartial and, in a sense, "blind" as to the person coming before him: rich and poor, young and old, men and women of all races were entitled to equal justice under the law.

Look at the lefty words the good judge employs in a statement, the veracity of which has no factual basis whatsoever, on Law.
"Entitled"?
"Equal"?

And does it need to be pointed out that it is literally impossible for any human being to be impartial on any subject, in any context, at any moment in time.

Laws, and their implementation, have never been impartial.
And how could they be when nature has filled the world with things that are not equal?
Men and Women.
White and black.
Smart and dumb.
Healthy and crippled.
etc..etc..



Was the good judge being impartial when he clung to his Ten Commandments monument?

The judge only magnifies his obtuseness when he writes,

As long ago as 1256, an English jurist by the name of Henry de Bracton wrote in his treatise "On the Laws and Customs of England" that every judge must employ truth in judgment.

So a White Man backs up his proclivity for "blind justice" by quoting......a White Man.


As for actual racial difference in worldviews,

It has long been noted that a great many non-Whites never reach an emotional maturity beyond that of a ten year old. Not surprisingly they tend to hold childlike (I'm the center of the universe) type of opinions.
Make them "king for a day" and they'll have candy every meal, playtime all the time, demand the same toys as everyone else, do away with grades and testing so as to make "equal" the smart kids with the dumb kids, make their bestest friends councils and insist all else grovel before them.

Of course the immature also are unburdened with such notions as consequence or social delicacies. And that frees them up to make statements along the lines of, "my people are better than your people".

In other words they tend to say what they actually think. Whereas Whites today tend to say the opposite of what they think for fear that the truth might offend someone, somewhere.



Judge Moore continues,

This "judgment" consisted first of:

indifferent and impartial acceptance of the parties, as it is written in the first book of Deuteronomy, "Hear them and judge righteously between them, whether he be one of your country or a stranger. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but shall hear the small as well as the great; neither shall ye respect any man's person, for the judgment is God's."

This biblical injunction, given by Moses to Israel, was quoted by Judge Bracton and has been a cornerstone of English law and, more recently, American jurisprudence.

Well, actually, no....no it hasn't

American jurisprudence leans more towards Roman Common Law than to biblical proclomations of the rather murky sort.

Using Moses as an example of good moral reasonging in law is, how shall I put this, disturbing.

¹³ And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

¹⁴ And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

¹⁵ And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

¹⁶ Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

¹⁷ Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

¹⁸ But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

-Numbers 31

The picture that passage paints ain't pretty, is it. These poor girls just saw their homes destroyed and their fathers murdered by an invading army, which has now enslaved them.
Now they are to be "examined" to see if they are virgins then given as "gifts" to the waiting men. And while that was going on their mothers, brothers and older sisters were being led off to the side and literally hacked to death.


Call me impartial, but I'm rather glad our founders leaned more towards Roman Common law than to biblical prescriptions for justice....





The fact is there is nothing wrong with Judge Sotomayor's bias. That she prefers and loves her own people above all others is actually a reason to respect her. (the same is true of Rev. Jeremiah Wright)

Her feelings and attitude towards her people are normal and healthy.


The problem is not with biased racial views. (Judge Moore's preference for impartial justice is no less race-based than Judge Sotomayor's rejection of it. The difference is Moore is unwilling to admit that fact or unable to see it)


No, the problem is attempting to implement a singular type of justice system in a multi-racial, multi-religious nation.
It just cannot work.
And any attempt to "make it work" will only lead to greater injustices. As it always has historically.

The races are different. It's as simple as that.

Each race must be free to seek after their own ideas of justice, civility and social order on their own terms within their own societies and nations.

The only other option is tyranny followed by endless revolutions followed by more tyranny.



If we must enshrine in our social philosophy anything which Moses said, then let it be, "Let my people go!"



...
Making Unequal Things Equal Is A Fool's Pursuit....