Law and Truth
Just came across a great little piece on findlaw's commentary. A pet peeve of mine: watching intellectual dishonesty being pulled off by politicos who, while telling untruths or flip-flopping their idealogies, continue to carry on an air of moral-correctness.
Well, here's a wonderful essay. The example of our supposed-man-of-principled-arghument is George Will. But beyond the example of his legal pragmatism, Edward Lazarus gets to a broader, moral point. Some highlights:
"I've always believed here is such a thing as a "true" answer (even if we cannot know it with certainty), and that there are ways of discerning better from worse, whether in argument or music or literature.
Nowhere did these beliefs seem to be more important than in the field of law. Courts wield great power to shape the social order and control the destiny of individuals. Their integrity rests ultimately on the belief that their decisions are not merely just that - exercises of power - but are, in addition, principled attempts to discern the proper meaning of the law. And the idea that there is a "proper meaning" in the first place, in turn presumes a universe that recognizes a genuine ability to choose better arguments over weaker ones, regardless of what one thinks of the results the arguments lead us to."
...
"Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison to the enterprise of the law. Yet countless examples show intellectual dishonesty has now become a routine, expected part of American discourse. The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are greeted with shrugged shoulders and a grunt of "what did you expect?"
These dishonesties that we have come to accept too easily range from the non-reasoning of Bush v. Gore, to the logic-defying economic rationale for more tax cuts, to the ever-shifting justification of war in Iraq. And they extend to just about every other significant issue of law and policy that affects American life."

Read, for your soul...