Here I am a month from finals in the first semester of law school.

Somehow I am keeping on...  This short little break to write a quick post will hopefully do wonders for my mentality now.  We'll see, right...

But, in the time I have been studying law, I have to say my outlook on how to approach politics has changed.  I am not sure exactly where to put my finger on it, but it has struck me how much power the judiciary has, in defining law and policy.  Law is one thing, but policy is something else entirely.  I'd say we all know the basic definitions of the two terms, but the law is much more than the rules we as a society follow.  It is based on much more than what the legislature says and what the courts in the past have said.  It is fluid, ever changing to an unknown destination.  What it is based on is really the question, and how that question is answered will guide the destiny of our common law, and legislative, system.

I'd say many people would point to the differences in how to interpret the Constitution as the key to this discussion.  Whether or not the Constitution is viewed as a living document or if we are to go back and take it as the Founders intended are popular ways to define this debate.  But this is not where I want to take the discussion right now.  To me, the discussion hinges on a more basic foundation that defines us all.  This discussion hinges on how we define right and wrong.  How we define right and wrong then leads us to the question that all legal scholars seek to answer.  That question is how we ensure justice for all is reached. 

So, how do we ensure justice for all is reached?  I am not sure I can provide a good and clear answer at the moment, but I'll throw some bones out there that give my current thoughts on the subject.  First, redistributing wealth is not justice for all.  It may feel good because taking from the few rich and giving to the poor feels good, and maybe even 'right', but it is not justice for all, since the rich are in effect being robbed of their hard earned wealth.  There are those who may argue that many who have the wealth hardly work.  I'd wage a bet to see what would happen if some of these 'lesser' folk lived a week in the shoes of the wealthy to see if they work.

Second, healthcare for all is not justice for all either.  Why is this one not justice for all?  Isn't it good to give health care to those who can't afford it?  Well, yes, it does sound good, for sure.  But then when I think a bit deeper on the issue, isn't healthcare really expensive?  Isn't that the reason why some cannot afford it?  So who, then, gets to pay for it?  I'd put another wager on this one: anyone who pays takes would pay for the healthcare given to all.  There are two things we can assume from that.  The first is that if someone is paying taxes to get healthcare, it’s really not free, and second we can assume that the larger burden is on those paying the most taxes, namely the wealthy.  So, healthcare for all is really not providing justice for all.

Third, free speech given to all is justice for all, right!  Requiring media to give equal time to all viewpoints is giving justice for all, right?  Isn't it?  You know, this sounds good, too.  Doesn't it?  In all fairness, why shouldn't we give equal time to opposing views on the radio?  I'll give my short answer-- because it doesn't work.  It doesn't work because most radio stations likely to have such commentary under question are likely to be for profit, and experience has shown liberal talk radio does not bring in money.  In other words, it’s not economically feasible.  And requiring these stations to give equal time really is an infringement on the very right in question-- to free speech.  It doesn't work to try to impose free speech by squelching a particular voice.  This voice is squelched because something must be sacrificed in order to give that equal time.  The very notion is self damning, and does not lead to justice for all.

But these three examples would be argued that they are to be instituted for the greater good of society.  Lowering the taxes of the poor with the express purpose of raising taxes on the rich to use those funds to support the poor betters society as a whole, they would argue.  By bringing the bottom up, we lift the entire body up, too.  This is a noble goal, but history bears different results, one of a lack of effort at the top, and one of a lack of effort at the bottom.  Why should someone work hard to be rich when all the riches will be taken away and why, then, will anyone work to support themselves when someone else is doing it for them?  "Free speech should be protected and all should have an equal voice," is also another mantra that will be given.  However, the consequences of implementing this idea are not addressed, and thus the moral is lost.

So, now I come back to the question I posed earlier.  How do we determine what is right and wrong, and how do we determine what is just?  The questions of right, wrong, and justice all have to do with how we view the world ahead of us.  Do we tackle it head on, like the barons of old?  Do we tackle it like those a century ago, who, for the most part, simply strove to make each day better for themselves and their family?   Do we move ahead with that same attitude, sucking up the pain of the credit crisis, by admitting our mistakes and learning from them like so many did during the Great Depression?  How many of our grandparents worked hard and saved so they could live through another moment like that?  Or do we try to live in the remnants of the many failed but wonderful sounding mantras of the past?  The Great Society?  Communism's lure of the worker king?  Do we live on the messages spread in today's entertainment system-- glory and fun now?  "Carpe diem," John Keating told his students in a movie.  Seize the day, they say, and follow it with the message of "It’s not your fault."  Do we move on in this manner?  To live for today, and any wrongs will be made right by someone else?

Many will object to these notions, but to me they are clear.  Our choice is to suck up our pains, and our misguided attempts, as a nation whole, and move forward through the struggles to a glory beyond where we are now, or to succumb to the temptation to blame it on them.  Bailouts, equal time, health care for all, Robin Hoods, and down the line we go, all point to a decision to the latter. 

Why?  Because our sense of justice is becoming that it is better to reward the most rather than those who deserve it most.  Justice is being used as a synonym for equality, and that is something it is not.  Justice is bigger than equality, and ought not to be cheapened by lowering its standard to test of simple majority status. 

Equality is a noble goal in and of itself, but equality is not being equal-- it cannot be equal because no one is the same.  To claim equality should be to claim that each person, given the same chance, did the best with it they could.  Some will succeed, and others will not.  But to say that this difference in results is inequality goes against the very notion of justice.  The notion of justice is that the just receive their due rewards.  By just living is does not warrant justice. 

This can get far more complicated, as part of the cry for equality is that certain groups do not get the same chances, and are immediately put in a negative position.  I cannot take this position seriously when looking at the myriad of people who, coming from the very situations in question, have succeeded, and they have succeeded without the help of others.  They received justice.  They took their opportunity and won their due reward.  They deserve what they won, and all too often, by what I see as a great irony, their voice is shut out by the very group claiming equality based on tenants of justice for all-- justice for all except those who have succeeded.