Slashdot Mirror
Texas Supreme Court Cites Mr. Spock
An anonymous reader writes "We always knew that Spock was wise and would probably make a pretty good judge, so perhaps it's a good thing to see the Texas Supreme Court citing Spock in a recent ruling, noting his wisdom in stating that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.'"
The judge obviously hasn't seen Star Trek III... Captain Kirk and his crew risk their lives to save Spock. And when he asks them why, Kirk replies "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." And then Spock raises an eyebrow...
Refreshingly pompous: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm
This is actually a concurring opinion, and not the main opinion. As such, little can be gleaned from it regarding what the actual case is about. This is the main opinion. Quoting the summary:
The issue we address in this case is whether a statute that limits certain corporations’ successor liability for personal injury claims of asbestos exposure violates the prohibition against retroactive laws contained in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution1 as applied to a pending action. We hold that it does, and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals2 and remand the case to the trial court.
So as we can see, it's a rather dull case concerning asbestos.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
If you read the entire court decision, you'll see that they point to this Spockian utilitarianism as something to be wary of. Their decision was actually to reverse just such legislation.
A person's 'natural' right to property is limited only to what he can personally defend against others who might try to take it. Anything beyond that is purely based upon other people recognizing my claim, which they are not obligated to do, and may only do when it is in their own interest.
That an individual might claim to own a particular piece of property doesn't mean that property law generally is founded on individuals.
Your example of a single person fighting against a large and presumably unscrupulous group to keep their land only works when the single person can call upon the resources of a much larger group -- law enforcement, the judicial system, the army, etc. -- for aid. Consider the difference between someone being forced off their land at gunpoint by brigands, and someone being forced off their land via a foreclosure by a bank. Not only will the local sheriff not defend the second victim, he is apt to be called in to help kick him out. And if invulnerable aliens landed there the next day and disintegrated anyone who crossed the property line, the aliens would own it, because a good disintegration gun is worth a lot more than a mere property deed.
It's not pretty, but this is how property law ultimately works when you get down to the bottom of it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
First, we recognize that police power draws from the credo that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Second, while this maxim rings utilitarian and Dickensian (not to mention Vulcan21), it is cabined by something contrarian and Texan: distrust of intrusive government and a belief that police power is justified only by urgency, not expediency. That is, there must exist a societal peril that makes collective action imperative: “The police power is founded in public necessity, and only public necessity can justify its exercise.”22 Third, whether the surrender of constitutional guarantees is necessary is a legislative call in terms of desirability but a judicial one in terms of constitutionality. The political branches decide if laws pass; courts decide if laws pass muster. The Capitol is the center of policymaking gravity, but the Constitution exerts the strongest pull, and police power must bow to constitutional commands: “as broad as [police power] may be, and as comprehensive as some legislation has sought to make it, still it is subsidiary and subordinate to the Constitution.”23 Fourth, because the Constitution claims our highest allegiance, a police-power action that burdens a guarantee like the Retroactivity Clause must make a convincing case.24 Finally, while police power naturally operates to abridge private rights, our Constitution, being inclined to freedom, requires that such encroachments be as slight as possible: “Private rights are never to be sacrificed to a greater extent than necessary.”25
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm#_ftnref21
Note: "cabined" means limited, contained in a small place
TL;DR: The Vulcan quote was used as an example of evil to be contained, not as a guiding principle.