Just a few thoughts on Coleman

The law as free from controversy is not really something I hold as a mandatory quality for making something a law. This got me thinking about how when trying to pluck morality out of law and turn it to just facts, this would be an attractive thought that once morality arrived at controversial issues, not holding a majority or accepted principles applied in the same manner, then this hazy area where there is no real sort of precedent and the case is not easily decided by law as fact, can just be said not to be law. I have a real problem with this sort of oh well the law doesn’t apply in this case so too bad and your done sort of ideal. Even in situations where there are accepted or widely held values held in a particular case or instance the principle does not have to be the same one and can be held more important than another principle by the opposing side, this however gets us back to the problem of trying to weigh or rank principle, which I do not see an easy or even remotely logical way of doing this. The law is not void of controversy, and that does not really make it a terrible thing either. I think the tricky thing with trying to interpret principles is the decision of who it is that will be given the responsibility of deciding how to rule on principles when the law as fact does not, as it can never possibly, cover completely a situation. After making the choice of who gets the job of deciding principle then there is also the issue that I think it was Dworkin brought up about if then these judges of principle should or can even be held accountable or responsible for their choice, and on what grounds would one really review or overturn a ruling on principle other than a differing opinion.