Uranus

[Gracchus]

Au contraire, it takes a special kind of adult to say what you just said. And, someone once noted that Christianity can almost be deduced from the fact that men make crude jokes.

I don't think you are supposed to call Christianity a crude joke. Of course, as I have implied, I have somewhat outgrown fart jokes and toilet humor.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." --- 1 Corinthians 13:11

 

[Gracchus]

Well if an actor can be president, one could certainly be a scientist.

The actor played a president, did as directed, and tried to stay on the script he was given. Of course when the Alzheimer's set in he couldn't remember his lines.
But, in any case, Richard Attenbourough was NOT a scientist. He did narrate science shows, but he couldn't even pronounce Diplodocus.

 

[Nithavela]

Potato, tomato, your anus.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well if an actor can be president, one could certainly be a scientist.

If Justices of the Supreme Court are considered experts on gestational development then anything goes.

 

[durangodawood]

If Justices of the Supreme Court are considered experts on gestational development then anything goes.

They should be consulting scientists on matters of science, but certain justices would rather substitute their own 'best judgement', no doubt.

 

[grasping the after wind]

They should be consulting scientists on matters of science, but certain justices would rather substitute their own 'best judgement', no doubt.

Or perhaps they ought to rule on law rather than science?

 

[durangodawood]

Or perhaps they ought to rule on law rather than science?

Certain law hinges on findings of science. There's no way around this.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Certain law hinges on findings of science. There's no way around this.

I disagree wholeheartedly . I would ask you to provide examples of Supreme Court ruling on a necessary law that hinged on the opinions of the Supreme Court's preferred selected experts in science but I am sure we would simply disagree upon whether the law was necessary and whether the Supreme Court's opinion upon what expert opinions were more correct was valid or not.

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree wholeheartedly . I would ask you to provide examples of Supreme Court ruling on a necessary law that hinged on the opinions of the Supreme Court's preferred selected experts in science but I am sure we would simply disagree upon whether the law was necessary and whether the Supreme Court's opinion upon what expert opinions were more correct was valid or not.

How about the case you mentioned re gestational development.

 

[grasping the after wind]

How about the case you mentioned re gestational development.

AFAIK they did not use any scientific opinion to come to that conclusion. They simply picked an arbitrary time. And, yes, I would say the ruling itself was completely unnecessary.

 

[durangodawood]

AFAIK they did not use any scientific opinion to come to that conclusion. They simply picked an arbitrary time. And, yes, I would say the ruling itself was completely unnecessary.

Thats what I'm talking about: a matter in which the formulation of a law hinges (or should hinge) on a finding of science. We can find this in other areas as well, like environmental protection.

These laws come before courts from time to time.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Thats what I'm talking about: a matter in which the formulation of a law hinges on a finding of science. We can find this in other areas as well, like environmental protection.

These laws come before courts from time to time.

There are many unnecessary court rulings without reasonable restraint from the bench. The court does not need to know a thing about environmental protection at all. All the court needs to know about environmental protection law is whether or not the laws were properly enacted by the Legislature and are being properly carried out by the Executive. The court does not make law it only adjudicates. If an environmental protection law is based upon psuedo science or an invalid scientific opinion that is a matter for the Legislature to take up not the courts. If an Executive refuses to administer the law as it was written then the Court is properly called in to decide if the Executive can legally do this. That determination has nothing whatsoever to do with the science that was used as motivation for the law and everything to do with the legal powers of the Legislature and of the Executive . This is why Roe v Wade was an overreach and a bad decision by the Supreme Court. the Court could well decide that a law prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional( that is a matter of legal opinion and the Court has the right to rule by a majority opinion.) what it had no right to do was substitute for the old unconstitutional law a new law that prohibited abortion after a certain arbitrarily arrived at time. That would have been the province of the Legislature. IMO the better course would have been to leave the situation alone altogether and allow the Legislature or the individual state legislatures to do their jobs. Failing that they should simply have declared the law in the case unconstitutional given the legal reasoning and refrained from pretending to not only have legislative powers but to also know so much about fetal development that they could set a date certain on when a fetus has developed sufficiently to be kept alive.

 

[durangodawood]

AFAIK they did not use any scientific opinion to come to that conclusion. They simply picked an arbitrary time. And, yes, I would say the ruling itself was completely unnecessary.

Sounds like they should have consulted scientific findings rather than deciding arbitrarily.

 

[durangodawood]

There are many unnecessary court rulings without reasonable restraint from the bench. The court does not need to know a thing about environmental protection at all. All the court needs to know about environmental protection law is whether or not the laws were properly enacted by the Legislature and are being properly carried out by the Executive. The court does not make law it only adjudicates. If an environmental protection law is based upon psuedo science or an invalid scientific opinion that is a matter for the Legislature to take up not the courts. If an Executive refuses to administer the law as it was written then the Court is properly called in to decide if the Executive can legally do this. That determination has nothing whatsoever to do with the science that was used as motivation for the law and everything to do with the legal powers of the Legislature and of the Executive . This is why Roe v Wade was an overreach and a bad decision by the Supreme Court. the Court could well decide that a law prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional( that is a matter of legal opinion and the Court has the right to rule by a majority opinion.) what it had no right to do was substitute for the old unconstitutional law a new law that prohibited abortion after a certain arbitrarily arrived at time. That would have been the province of the Legislature. IMO the better course would have been to leave the situation alone altogether and allow the Legislature or the individual state legislatures to do their jobs. Failing that they should simply have declared the law in the case unconstitutional given the legal reasoning and refrained from pretending to not only have legislative powers but to also know so much about fetal development that they could set a date certain on when a fetus has developed sufficiently to be kept alive.

There's lots of examples where scientific knowledge is essential for a proper ruling.
For example: is patent law applicable to portions of the human genome? The legislation did not specifically address this. So its properly the courts responsibility to determine how the law applies.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There's lots of examples where scientific knowledge is essential for a proper ruling.
For example: is patent law applicable to portions of the human genome? The legislation did not specifically address this. So its properly the courts responsibility to determine how the law applies.

Under those circumstances, it is the court's responsibility to rule as the law is written not as they would have it be written. IMO It is not at all necessary to have scientific expertise to know how to apply the law to portions of the human genome. Human DNA is no different than air it was not invented by someone so it ought not be subject to patent law. I do not know much about the human genome but I do know that it was not an invention of anyone now living. Therefore no one has the proper right to a patent on it. A patent might be issued for whatever process might have been used to identify a genome but the genome itself is not something that ought to be eligible for a patent IMO. Additionally, if there is something that a law does not deal with then the Court may call for the Legislature to clarify the law and the Legislature may or may not decide that it will do this. If it does not, then whatever action is not covered by a law must be considered to be a legal action. So if the patent office decides a thing is or is not eligible for a patent and no law written by the Legislature makes it clear that it is or is not eligible then the decision of the office is legally correct whatever way it decides and despite my opinion that it ought not be eligible . The courts does not have the responsibility to make new law because the law written by the Legislature did not cover something.

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

I have always said it like in the second example and stopped giggling about its name sounding rude when I matured as an adult. Which I have been assured will happen any day now. Hopefully.

 

[durangodawood]

Under those circumstances, it is the court's responsibility to rule as the law is written not as they would have it be written. IMO It is not at all necessary to have scientific expertise to know how to apply the law to portions of the human genome. Human DNA is no different than air it was not invented by someone so it ought not be subject to patent law. I do not know much about the human genome but I do know that it was not an invention of anyone now living. Therefore no one has the proper right to a patent on it. A patent might be issued for whatever process might have been used to identify a genome but the genome itself is not something that ought to be eligible for a patent IMO. Additionally, if there is something that a law does not deal with then the Court may call for the Legislature to clarify the law and the Legislature may or may not decide that it will do this. If it does not, then whatever action is not covered by a law must be considered to be a legal action. So if the patent office decides a thing is or is not eligible for a patent and no law written by the Legislature makes it clear that it is or is not eligible then the decision of the office is legally correct whatever way it decides and despite my opinion that it ought not be eligible . The courts does not have the responsibility to make new law because the law written by the Legislature did not cover something.

Sure. You think its completely obvious. But exactly how much modification does it take to turn a portion of the genome from 'natural' to 'modified' or 'invented'?

If you disagree with the patent office, the court is your recourse. And to best provide justice, the court should rely on advice from scientists, and not upon their own half-remembered, or ideological, or plain wrong personal understandings of the matter.

 

[Chesterton]

I so wish grasping and durango would take the pronunciation of Uranus to the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be fun to hear the audio of the oral arguments, those hallowed chambers filled with giggling every few minutes?