Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 7700181" data-attributes="member: 6804070">Interesting. It depends upon the manner of redress one seeks. Other methods of redress have been mentioned, by me, and I think others. Again, you return to legal recourse and the right to legal redress. Again, I will state I will not argue either side of that issue. Because quite simply, I believe under US law they have the legal right to do so. But again, legal right does not equal moral justification.I believe that in a case such as this, if the judges became aware of illegal activities, they had other ethical and legal courses they could have taken. Also, responsibility is not a one party or another. In this case both parties, IMO, held responsibilities and therefore are not unlimited in their ethical choices for redress. And I do not see how such a belief leads to a moral black hole. But, I do see how a view that when one is wronged that they have an universal right to legal recourse could lead to a society ripe for excessive litigation, bureaucracy and moral decline.</blockquote>