5 Week 3 – Reflection Paper Reflection Paper #3 Business Law This week’s agenda reviewed the topics of how our judicial system works hand in hand with philosophy and legal interpretation. First and foremost, the podcast that reviews Judicial Philosophy in Legal Interpretation at the Supreme Court, talks about how those who work with and for the law make the choices and decisions they make and why. They have addressed how police officers, supreme court justices, and even judges evaluate the law and interpret the written law and reprimand or investigate certain situations based not only on mandated law, but they also use personal beliefs and experiences to make legal choices. It distinguishes how these justices may vote for and with the written law and the court system rather than their own beliefs and philosophy. There are many supreme court justices that are acting on behalf of the supreme court for 30 years, or what is considered a lifetime. When this occurs the law and supreme court views and dispositions do not change, the influences on the court hardly differ. The only way to change the beliefs of this supreme court committee is to enact a law, which could be constitutional, only allowing these justices to be involved for a max of 18 years. This then suggests that every other year a justice will retire thus changing the ideals, beliefs, and philosophical ideologies of those who are making choices on behalf of the law. Professor Ward Farnsworth had commented on a particular situation that I found very interesting; the situation was about a young man who was in an area known for illegal activity, the young man then began running as soon as he noticed the police officers. The police officers then had to determine, based off of previous experiences if the young man was running because he was hiding something, had done something illegal, or was in fact scared. Host Dan Rae had then mentioned that maybe the young man had grown up in an environment that led him to fear law enforcement, and he began running whether or not he had in fact done anything wrong. As Professor Ward then stated that the police officers experience may have been that individuals who run from law enforcement typically have done something they shouldn’t. You now have two very different perspectives and only life experience combined with the law can determine what actions to take. In the case of George W. Bush vs Al Gore, the same principles have applied. When the state court systems approved the recount of the votes in various counties the supreme court then reviewed the case and decided that under the fourteenth amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, back down to the state level and the state of Florida felt as though they had no choice but to dismiss the case for a recount of the votes. It was determined that the actions that took place during this election in the state of Florida left many individuals feeling as though there were politics invo.

1. 5
Week 3 – Reflection Paper
Reflection Paper #3
Business Law
This week’s agenda reviewed the topics of how our
judicial system works hand in hand with philosophy and legal
interpretation. First and foremost, the podcast that reviews
Judicial Philosophy in Legal Interpretation at the Supreme
Court, talks about how those who work with and for the law
make the choices and decisions they make and why. They have
addressed how police officers, supreme court justices, and even
judges evaluate the law and interpret the written law and
reprimand or investigate certain situations based not only on
mandated law, but they also use personal beliefs and
experiences to make legal choices. It distinguishes how these
justices may vote for and with the written law and the court
system rather than their own beliefs and philosophy. There are
many supreme court justices that are acting on behalf of the
supreme court for 30 years, or what is considered a lifetime.
When this occurs the law and supreme court views and
dispositions do not change, the influences on the court hardly
differ. The only way to change the beliefs of this supreme court
committee is to enact a law, which could be constitutional, only

2. allowing these justices to be involved for a max of 18 years.
This then suggests that every other year a justice will retire thus
changing the ideals, beliefs, and philosophical ideologies of
those who are making choices on behalf of the law. Professor
Ward Farnsworth had commented on a particular situation that I
found very interesting; the situation was about a young man
who was in an area known for illegal activity, the young man
then began running as soon as he noticed the police officers.
The police officers then had to determine, based off of previous
experiences if the young man was running because he was
hiding something, had done something illegal, or was in fact
scared. Host Dan Rae had then mentioned that maybe the young
man had grown up in an environment that led him to fear law
enforcement, and he began running whether or not he had in fact
done anything wrong. As Professor Ward then stated that the
police officers experience may have been that individuals who
run from law enforcement typically have done something they
shouldn’t. You now have two very different perspectives and
only life experience combined with the law can determine what
actions to take.
In the case of George W. Bush vs Al Gore, the same
principles have applied. When the state court systems approved
the recount of the votes in various counties the supreme court
then reviewed the case and decided that under the fourteenth
amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, back down to the state
level and the state of Florida felt as though they had no choice
but to dismiss the case for a recount of the votes. It was
determined that the actions that took place during this election
in the state of Florida left many individuals feeling as though
there were politics involved in the outcome. The choices made
by those justices may or may not have been influenced by
personal, ethical, and past experiences that could have swayed
their choices. The outcome of the courts vote, 5-4, truly put the
election choice into the hands of the Supreme Court. Bush
supporters celebrated while Gore supporters were perplexed and
incensed. The entire election led to the potential recount of

3. these votes in Florida. The state did what they thought was
right, based again on ethical beliefs and past experiences in
connection with the way that the law was actually written, and
claimed that the only right thing to do was to pose a recount to
ensure that the correct presidential candidate truly won. When
the supreme court stepped in many people, not just those from
the Florida court system, believed that the power of the
Supreme Court was taken too far. The Supreme Court had truly
overstepped its boundaries and legal rights.
I think the most important concept that I learned this week
was that even though the law is written and determined to be the
final say in all judicial circumstances, that there truly is a grey
area. Police officers, lawyers, judges, and political figures,
everywhere all have a past. They each have grown, learned,
seen, and heard their own individual lives. The similarities they
all share is education, however even education is subject to
criticism and understanding. Ethical and moral choices are
made aside from the law. “When a man makes a moral choice
two things are involved; one is the act of choosing, the other is
the various feelings, impulses and so on which his
psychological outfit presents him with, and which are the raw
material of his choice,” says C.S. Lewis; these thoughts are
similar to those in a legal position, you have the law in which
you have to abide but then you also have your feelings and
opinions in which help outline the decisions you make within
those legal parameters (Lewis, 2005).
I believe that this legal concept affects businesses because
state and federal law outline what is acceptable and not
acceptable in everyday life and in those of businesses. Federal
laws oversee state laws, in which some cases are contradictory.
For instance, if state law allows the use of marijuana but the
federal laws do not, a company is faced with a choice to hire a
person based on state or federal law and have to be willing to
accept the legal repercussions that come along with that choice.
The concept that was most confusing for me, is that the
Supreme Court is allowed to override the choices of individual

4. states regardless of the subject matter. I understand that this is
similar to a checks and balances system, but I feel as though it
eliminates the system our country had originally intended it to
be. At the end of the day if we truly cannot even select our own
president, and the supreme court has the ability to overrule our
choices, then why are we even give the choices to begin with?
References
Bibliography
Lewis, C. S. (2005). Mere Christianity. New York, NY: Harper
Collins Publishers, Inc. .