|
|
This paper touches on points made between four lawyers in the discussion on how it would be possible to get reparations for slavery. Is reparations for Blacks plausible? Does statement in their discussion have credence in the court of law, or is it merely just outcome over process? Views coming from Robert H. Bork (author of The Tempting America) and Stanley Fish (author of the trouble with Principle), will also be covered to agree or disagree with statements made in the Harper articles. These four lawyers (Willie Gary, Alexander Pires, Richard Scruggs, Dennis Sweet) have come together to discuss to find a way to get reparation for African American's for not only just slavery but also the affects slavery had on the Black population. Their first legal strategy is to file the case a simple lawsuit. "After the war, former slaves were promised forty acres and a mule, and we never got it"(Gary 57), and because of this they are trying to file this as a breach of contract case. The issue of statue of limitations arose but was quickly refuted by Sweet, "Is an injustice no longer an injustice so long as you get away with it for a long time?"(Sweet 58); which shows that Sweet is a lawyer who favors outcome over process. I'm sure that Fish, being pro outcome, would be in support of Sweet and use the idea of his neutral principle to give him leverage on this issue Which brings me to the thoughts of Stanley fish and his views on "neutral principal". In his article he goes on talking about the myth of the neutral principle, and it's impossibility for anyone to be absolutely neutral. For you to be neutral you need to be able to lay the groundwork of what the words "equal" signify. How can anyone make the decision of seeing if it "would be fair to distribute goods equally irrespective of the accomplishments of those who receive them, or would it be fair to reward each according to his efforts"(Fish 39)? This paradox clearly shows that you may achieve being "fair" by choosing either outcome, but by going to one side of the issue, you are being unfair to the other side, thus further implicating the myth of the "neutral principle." It is because of the groundwork needed that one may use the idea of neutral principle in order to gain leverage or support for their cause, using this idea to "support higher and deeper than the support provided by it's own substantive thrust"(40).
|
