On Wednesday, Judge Miller gave a conversation during the Rose Cafe hour. He made two statements that stuck out to me the most, both of which I wish he expanded on more. The first was that law and morality are distinct from each other. He specifically made this comment in the context of the lawyer’s obligation to defend the prosecuted regardless of the evidence in favor of a guilty charge. I wish he would have talked more about why it is  the case that law and morality are distinct. Certainly, some theories of law such as natural law theory reject this proposition. And, in his discussion he talked about a defense lawyer’s obligation to “zealously defend” the persecuted. If this is a legal obligation, then what makes it obligatory? Is it merely obligatory because pragmatically it should be? Or because there are legal consequences for failure to abide by it? It seems hard to enforce a notion of legal obligation without invoking some form of moral obligation.

The other comment he made that I was curious about was along the lines of history always favors the progressive. Again, this is a claim that I wish he expanded on more. It certainly seems easy to find moments in history where this perspective doesn’t make sense, e.g. before the first wave of democracy. Then again, I suppose the statement is contingent on what is meant by progressive.