Changes

[[Appellate]] [[judge]]s have a very different job from [[trial]] [[judge]]s.  The [[appellate]] [[judge]]s must establish rules that render [[justice]] in the [[case]] before them, and in all other [[case]]s having similar facts.  They need to look beyond the dispute at hand and anticipate [[justice]] in [[future]] disputes also.

[[Appellate]] [[judge]]s have a very different job from [[trial]] [[judge]]s.  The [[appellate]] [[judge]]s must establish rules that render [[justice]] in the [[case]] before them, and in all other [[case]]s having similar facts.  They need to look beyond the dispute at hand and anticipate [[justice]] in [[future]] disputes also.

A classic [[problem]] is the “[[slippery slope]].”  That is what happens when someone steps onto a very slippery incline: they slide all the way down to the undesired [[bottom]].  An example in life is when someone takes [[illegal]] [[drugs]] for the first time.  They are stepping on a [[slippery slope]] that will ruin their lives.  [[Addiction]] results from the first use, and they soon slide to the [[bottom]] of [[society]].

A classic [[problem]] is the “[[slippery slope]].”  That is what happens when someone steps onto a very slippery incline: they slide all the way down to the undesired bottom.  An example in life is when someone takes [[illegal]] [[drugs]] for the first time.  They are stepping on a [[slippery slope]] that will ruin their lives.  [[Addiction]] results from the first use, and they soon slide to the bottom of [[society]].

In the [[law]], the [[slippery slope]] is when a [[court]] makes an [[exception]] that invites many more [[exception]]s like it.  Or when a [[court]] creates a new [[constitution]]al [[rights|right]] that invites many more new [[right]]s like it.

In the [[law]], the [[slippery slope]] is when a [[court]] makes an [[exception]] that invites many more [[exception]]s like it.  Or when a [[court]] creates a new [[constitution]]al [[rights|right]] that invites many more new [[right]]s like it.

An example is when “[[free speech]]” protection was extended to obscenities.  In one [[case]], a [[Vietnam]] protester wore a [[jacket]] in a [[courtroom]] that had an obscene word written on it, in reference to the [[draft dodging|draft]].  He was convicted for disturbing the [[peace]] and he [[appeal]]ed his [[case]] all the way to the U.S. [[Supreme Court]].  He ultimately won on [[free speech]] grounds.  But once one protects obscenity as [[free speech]], it became a [[slippery slope]].  Once one obscenity is protected, then other obscenities inevitably follow?

An example is when “[[free speech]]” protection was extended to obscenities.  In one [[case]], a [[Vietnam]] protester wore a [[jacket]] in a [[courtroom]] that had an obscene word written on it, in reference to the [[draft dodging|draft]].  He was convicted for disturbing the [[peace]] and he [[appeal]]ed his [[case]] all the way to the U.S. [[Supreme Court]].  He ultimately won on [[free speech]] grounds.  But once one protects obscenity as [[free speech]], it became a [[slippery slope]].  Once one obscenity is protected, then other obscenities inevitably follow?

This can also be seen in the [[Establishment Clause]] [[case]]s, such as the [[Ten Commandments]] [[case]].  Some feel that [[Judge]] [[Roy Moore]] should have removed the [[Ten Commandments]] from the [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]].  Though supportive of [[religion]], they feel that a few [[citizen]]s might have been offended by the display.  But that argument becomes a [[slippery slope]].  Where does the purging of [[religion]] from public life stop?  Its [[logic]] requires purging all [[religious]] references from public life: “[[In God We Trust]]” from our coins, and “under [[God]]” from our [[Pledge of Allegiance|pledge of allegiance]].  Before long, [[society]] slides down to the [[bottom]] of the hill, and hostility to [[religion]] has triumphed.

This can also be seen in the [[Establishment Clause]] [[case]]s, such as the [[Ten Commandments]] [[case]].  Some feel that [[Judge]] [[Roy Moore]] should have removed the [[Ten Commandments]] from the [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]].  Though supportive of [[religion]], they feel that a few [[citizen]]s might have been offended by the display.  But that argument becomes a [[slippery slope]].  Where does the purging of [[religion]] from public life stop?  Its [[logic]] requires purging all [[religious]] references from public life: “[[In God We Trust]]” from our coins, and “under [[God]]” from our [[Pledge of Allegiance|pledge of allegiance]].  Before long, [[society]] slides down to the bottom of the hill, and hostility to [[religion]] has triumphed.

It’s best to stay off the [[slippery slope]].

It’s best to stay off the [[slippery slope]].