See - http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/13020-the-supreme-court-has-to-face-the-music
"x x x.
There are two things that ought to be remembered when dealing with this issue.
First, the Court is not infallible. A court may reconsider its decision. When it commits an inaccuracy, it is its duty to rectify, modify or clarify it through the appropriate issuance within the limitations of procedural rules.
Second, the law is dynamic and ever-evolving. Whereas before at one point in history, slavery was perfectly legal, it is now absolutely prohibited. At one point in time, however, there could only be one law or legal interpretation to a difficult question of law. The Supreme Court, being the final arbiter, should speak in one voice.
Solicited or unsolicited, any piece of advice can only do so much. There is no other source of initiative that can reform the Court but the court itself. Institutional integrity starts with personal integrity. The Court can only be as good as the persons who compose it.
Solicited or unsolicited, any piece of advice can only do so much. There is no other source of initiative that can reform the Court but the court itself. Institutional integrity starts with personal integrity. The Court can only be as good as the persons who compose it.
Ideally, that should not be a problem at all. After all, the Constitution requires, as a qualification, that every member of the Court, or the judiciary for that matter, should be persons of “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.” In the end, history will judge us all.
I understand the author has had her bouts with libel suits that have become risks of the trade. It is advanced, with apologies to Benjamin Franklin, that if all printer were determined not to print anything until they were sure it would convey only words of truth, there would be very little discovered.
History tells us that modern-day truths and breakthrough exposés were considered heresies and blasphemies at their inception until after they were painstakingly challenged and distilled in the agora of ideas where sacred beliefs and sacrilegious opinions clash to produce that spark that enlightens.
Once again, congratulations to the “Hour Before Dawn.”
To the fans and followers of this much-anticipated book, the wait is finally over. And to the fans and followers of the Supreme Court, the flames of reform that the book seeks to fan shall hopefully finally intensify. - Rappler.com
I understand the author has had her bouts with libel suits that have become risks of the trade. It is advanced, with apologies to Benjamin Franklin, that if all printer were determined not to print anything until they were sure it would convey only words of truth, there would be very little discovered.
History tells us that modern-day truths and breakthrough exposés were considered heresies and blasphemies at their inception until after they were painstakingly challenged and distilled in the agora of ideas where sacred beliefs and sacrilegious opinions clash to produce that spark that enlightens.
Once again, congratulations to the “Hour Before Dawn.”
To the fans and followers of this much-anticipated book, the wait is finally over. And to the fans and followers of the Supreme Court, the flames of reform that the book seeks to fan shall hopefully finally intensify. - Rappler.com
x x x."
