Perry echoed his previous litany this way:
Here's some questions in bold below:
If a theif stands before a judge and his relative stands up on his behalf and asks the Judge for mercy stating that he will pay the offended party 10 times the amount stolen if he will release the thief into his custody.... the Judge is NOW faced with TWO POSSIBLE REMEDIES.
(1) He can accept the payment. In that case, the offended party pockets the cash and ALL go home satisfied.
(2) He can reject the offer & pass prison sentence. In this case only the offended party goes home somewhat satisfied.
In either case, Justice is served no? It is the Judges' call.
There was no relative with a ten time payment for Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the Judgment was just then as it is now.
Is it hypocritical to criticize God for showing mercy when we enjoy receiving it and at times enjoy giving it?
Well, is it?
Can you NOT see my answer, Perry? A Judge is BOUND by law in what "mercy" he can extend. Judges don't get to go beyond the law.
A righteous God is only righteous when He consistently honors His own standards and values reflected in His law.
Since you don't actually READ my responses I'll repeat them like you repeat your question ( which my response answered!)
Definitions of judicial discretion:
- Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. ...
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the following on this subject:
Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge, always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law .