Rational Thought As The Basis Of Law

Here is a great quote from Steve Sanders, UofM law blogger from his blog "Reason & Liberty"
..........
Reason - meaning accurate perception and logical argument, based on fact rather than prejudice or superstition - is critical to the survival of liberty. Reason is the essence of law; it depends on an enlightened citizenry and a free press ... Civil liberties, human autonomy, and the countermajoritarian principles of our Constitution are in peril when fundamental rights are subject to the whims of popular opinion, and when dogma supplants free thought and debate.
.......

Comments

[The Ayn Rand Fan]

That sounds like something Ayn Rand would include in some of her heroic characters.
It made sense for Howard Roark and made the John Galt line an inevitable reality.

It makes sense now more than ever. Our justice system is worth protecting from the corporate influence which run the executive and legislative branches of our Michigan Government(and federal government as well). The supreme court and the court of appeals fell victim to a singular ideology through political appointments to vacant seats and the incumbency which inevitably follows. It is not the ideology of rational thought. It has its own agenda. Because precedent no longer counts, any given court (such as this one) can simply do whatever it wants without any limitation. Could we ever underestimate the importance of precedent on the stability of our judicial system? Don't average citizens understand that when they let a court do whatever it wants on the theory that it is going to fix 100 years of cases which they disagree with, that they have allowed the very foundation of 'law' to be destroyed? Remember, when the dreaded liberals take over the executive and legislative branches in Michigan, they get to do whatever they want as well.

Kind of sounds like our other two branches of government, doesn't it? Except those two branches 'check' each other. There is no power over the Supreme Court and virtually no 'check or balance' over the Michigan Supreme Court. Do we want absolute power to go unchecked by 'binding precedent?' The founders of our government would be horrified.

Check out <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer" rel="nofollow"> The Ayn Rand Institute"<a/>
<i>The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism</i>

['Open Source' for Law?]

Here are soemgreat linksforinfo on how the internet has the power to change the practice ...
<a rel="nofollow">Blawgs, transparency, and public confidence in the judiciary</a>

<a rel="nofollow">What Has Your Blawg Done For You, Your Clients, Your Profession, Lately?</a>