Norton's Losing Liberty Judicially now online

jbone at jbone at
Sun Nov 9 21:49:14 PST 2003

T. says:

> I have sympathy for strict constructionism, in the
> same way that I have sympathy for the notion that if
> only we could tease out one, universal ontology,
> semantics would be much easier.



Cf. Godel.

NB:  carefully note my distinction between "criminal" law and "civil" 
law.  Implicit in this is an assertion (not assumption, rather backed 
by a consistent rationale that you can tease out if careful) that we 
should have as little of the former as possible and as much of the 
latter as possible.

There's no need for a universal ontology, and there's no need to 
entirely (or even partially) dispense with judicial discretion.  Only a 
(desperate) need for some very rigid and incontrovertible guidance as 
to when this discretion is appropriate --- and when it isn't.


More information about the FoRK mailing list