A'nold wrote:Tautology wrote:Fark-o-vision wrote:I think the idea of "neutrality" in the political realm is a bit of a joke. After all, so much of it is based on culture and culture is heavily influenced by age, or region. Even on issues like Abortion, which lend themselves to the conclusion that one side must be right, we rarely see agreement. We view political issues in dichotomy because thats easy, and it makes communicating in our everyday life a little more convenient, but it doesn't represent reality. After all, very few people are "for" abortion. Suggesting that you'd be neutral only suggests that you believe yourself to be fair based on your own cultural heritage. In this case, though, it's a meaningless term.
I tried to say that earlier but they got mad at me, good luck to you.
Man, you didn't let me drop some kind of sarcastic comment on this guy; it was coming.
Anyway, about the Keeler case: The judges used a textualist approach to interpreting the statute to fit their political desires/fears. The judges were too big of p*ssies to actually come to the right decision. The leg. changed the law w/in the year. Everyone knew they were using a technicality for their own purposes. The most common (and most accepted) way of interpreting statues is the intentionalist approach, where you look at the legislative history and other things surrounding the statute. Technology was non-existent in the 1850's and babies had to be born alive to prove that it would have in fact been born alive to convict someone of its murder. Also, the court talked about notice. Well, sometimes things are inherently known to be evil, like punching a pregnant woman in the stomach in an effort to kill her baby.
I agree with everything you said.