America and most of the West was founded upon this concept called The Rule of Law. At the core of America's legal system is this idea that the Rule of Law is an objective reality. Those who administer our legal system are generally viewed as 'objective' in their decision-making (an example is our Supreme Court). This idea has been constant since the founding of America. But is this idea valid TODAY?
My sense is that this idea of a system of laws which govern a nation (objectively) is no longer VALID. Real time examples are the situation with two of our Supreme Court justices. Samuel Alito now thinks that we live with a 'conundrum' when it comes to the political LEFT vs the political RIGHT and their differing viewpoints on reality. The left sees (for example) abortion as a right of women to decide (mostly). The right generally views abortion as anathema to sound moral behavior. This is only one example of legal differences on issues of social relationships.
Judge Clarence Thomas see's his legal opinion (say on abortion) as objective while a contemporary Judge who disagrees with Clarence sees the opposite. This seems to go for many legal issues which we now face in real-time. Is our Constitution capable of being objectively interpreted or is it a document of text which gets subjectively interpreted by each legal expert? Religious doctrines are similar examples...where different interpretations emerge from our experts who read/study the theological text. Our real-time experiences are now revealing all this subjectivity in the marketplace.
The same goes for this legal idea that a President must have 'immunity' from criminal prosecution. Some of our Supreme Court judges say 'immunity' is implied in our Constitution and others say NO. What about the recent conviction of a prior President (Donald Trump) for his business practices and hush money payments? Was this behavior a legal misdemeanor or was it a felony? It's all a matter of viewpoint (interpretation). One legal expert says Trump is fully guilty (before the law) and another says absolutely not (it's a Kangaroo court). So what is reality on this issue called the Rule of Law?
My sense is that all interpretations and viewpoints on this concept are really 'subjective' at the core. One person (or expert) will assert that the Rule of Law can be objectively administrated (by them) and another will assert the precise opposite. What does this reveal (about reality) in real-time (the NOW)? It reveals that all legal concepts are actually SUBJECTIVELY interpreted. Interpretations are subjective as we human's are subjective. Words (text) in a legal document get interpreted subjectively (by each expert). All is subjective because human beings are SUBJECTIVE. My viewpoint derives from my subjective mindset and yours derives from your subjective mindset. Amazing! Who comprehends?
The diversity in interpretation of any LAW results from our subjective human mindset. What does this mean going forward for America and any other nation which ASSUMES that the Rule of Law is objective? It means that whoever gets their friends (to serve on a court of law) will prevail over those who disagree with these friends. The so-called Rule of Law will be administrated subjectively by whoever gets to assume a position of authority within our legal system. Justice will be administered SUBJECTIVELY (even as those who administer this so-called justice will claim 'objectivity'). What a 'conundrum' this has become!
What we now need to learn from recent experiences (in real-time) with our Justice System is that whoever gets to ADMINISTER the system (in real-time) will use their subjective viewpoint as their claim that this viewpoint is OBJECTIVE (even as it is the precise opposite). It's a total CONUNDRUM (theological joke) when fully comprehended. There is no objective RULE OF LAW on this planet. Why? Because human beings are ALL subjective human beings (at the core). We see reality differently/uniquely/individually. Is it now time to realize this reality and to choose a NEW MODEL for America and our planet going forward?
We now need a MODEL which supports the the idea that human nature is subjective. Truth is now subjective as are all legal opinions. This 'conundrum' (puzzle) needs to be internalized so we all recognize this reality (that human beings are subjective beings). There will be no objective RULE OF LAW going forward. Those who obtain a position of POWER will attempt to get LIKE minded persons in positions of legal power (our court system) so as to administer so-called JUSTICE. It's all become a GAME of thrones for those who obtain real POWER within the system.
All this means that we now need to reject this idea that government can administer justice objectively (fairly) for everyone. This is an ILLUSION/DECEPTION. Our real-time experiences (which we now witness) reveal the FOLLY of seeking objectivity within any governmental institution. Our Supreme Court is subjective. Our President (executive branch) is subjective. Our entire justice system is subjective. Human beings are subjective and truth is now subjective. SEEK truth even as you recognize the subjectivity of truth (in real-time). That is my motto. I SEEK truth but I (simultaneously) recognize its subjective nature (in the NOW).
Watch the real-time marketplace for conformation of this situation. Life is now subjective and each human person has a UNIQUE point-of-view. Who can discern this reality? Only those who desire our Creator God to rule this planet (so it seems). Father God is totally objective and his TRUTH is legally sound. You and I, however, are subjective and without any final (absolute) truth in real-time. The RULE OF LAW is now impotent (on planet Earth) and this will be proven in our real-time experiences going forward. The Biden/Trump soap opera is one obvious example. Have a great day as you contemplate this CONUNDRUM.
No comments:
Post a Comment