Should the US Supreme Court Decide Cases Based on the Constitution or on Fairness?

[mkemse]

I didn't disagree that written law can be interpreted different ways in some cases, what I said that it is inherently clearer than the nebulous concept of "fairness".

And you're incorrect on judges following the law. They follow it, to the letter, every day. With specific regard to sentencing, the written law sets forth a range of what the sentence should be with the expectation that the judge will use his discretion given the details of the case. If the range is 6 to 8 years, it's a rare case that the judge attempts to go outside that range. If the legislation specified a single term, instead of a range, that's what the sentence would be.

Furthermore, they follow the law daily with regard to admissible testimony. Every objection is weighed against the law -- a hearsay objection isn't an interpretation of what hearsay is, but an evaluation of the particular testimony to determine if it meets that criteria. Ever hear of a "three strikes" law? If the judges didn't have to follow the letter of the law, they wouldn't complain so much about having to, say, sentence someone to life in prison for grabbing a slice of pizza. Mandatory minimum sentences, where the law clearly lays out the minimum sentence for a crime, regardless of the specific circumstances.

All of these are instances of judges having to follow the letter of the law. And it's the vast majority of the cases, because if they don't, the case will be heard by an appellate court and their decision will be overturned.

Yes the do follow the law but they can also issue their own sentences they have guidlines to go with so they can use thier descrition as to how long or short asentence should be thats all

At least here in America, it is nice to be able to agree to disagree respectful without going to jal over the issue

[mkemse]

Yes the do follow the law but they can also issue their own sentences they have guidlines to go with so they can use thier descrition as to how long or short asentence should be thats all

At least here in America, it is nice to be able to agree to disagree respectful without going to jal over the issue

Whic hs ialso thier choice 1 Judhe may decide yo acept a certain pieice of evidence other may not, nothing written on this no law saynig tha must accrpt this or that they follow written guidelines but have latitude beyond that

[Ragoczy]

Whic hs ialso thier choice 1 Judhe may decide yo acept a certain pieice of evidence other may not, nothing written on this no law saynig tha must accrpt this or that they follow written guidelines but have latitude beyond that

There is law and precedent on that. If a judge throws out evidence or testimony (or allows it) that there is either written law or precedent on, then any verdict will likely wind up in appellate court, where the judge may be overridden -- since judges don't like that, they do follow the law and precedent. If there's actually no law or precedent (extremely rare), then yes the judge does have to use his own judgment, but even that isn't in a vacuum -- it's based on the law and precedent for things similar to what he's deciding. It's extremely rare for judges to go very far afield.

[mkemse]

There is law and precedent on that. If a judge throws out evidence or testimony (or allows it) that there is either written law or precedent on, then any verdict will likely wind up in appellate court, where the judge may be overridden -- since judges don't like that, they do follow the law and precedent. If there's actually no law or precedent (extremely rare), then yes the judge does have to use his own judgment, but even that isn't in a vacuum -- it's based on the law and precedent for things similar to what he's deciding. It's extremely rare for judges to go very far afield.

Thanks