A Quote by Gina Miller

Vagueness and good law are simply incompatible. — © Gina Miller
Vagueness and good law are simply incompatible.
Maybe vagueness has been good for me. The word means two different things in Tokyo and Osaka, you know. In Tokyo it means stupidity, but in Osaka they talk about vagueness in a painting and in a game of Go.
The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its purpose is to protect persons and property.... If you exceed this proper limit -- if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, or artistic -- you will then be lost in uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it on you.
Just, harmonious, temperate as is the spirit of liberty, there is in the name and mere notion of it a vagueness so opposite to the definite clearness of the moral law.
Theories of "natural law" and the "law of nations" are another excellent example of discussions destitute of all exactness. [...] "Natural law" is simply that law of which the person using the phrase approves[....]
Sharia law is completely incompatible with our constitution!
When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?
Wow, girlfriend, you're incompatible with life! And here I thought I was just incompatible with pink.
The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about moral values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.
Elegance and comfort are not incompatible, and whoever maintains the contrary simply doesn't know what he's talking about
To borrow from Mark Twain, I tend to think that reports of the death of supervaluationist approaches have been greatly exaggerated. The arguments that have been given against supervaluationism usually aim to show that it is just incoherent. But it's not. It may be false, as a general theory of vagueness, but it's a coherent and, I think, even correct way to think about some vagueness.
While we are under the tyranny of Priests, it will ever be their interest, to invalidate the law of nature and reason, in order to establish systems incompatible therewith.
I believe we should follow the text of every law, even (a) law I disagree with, it's one of the real differences -- if you look at President Obama and the lawlessness, if he disagrees with a law he simply refuses to follow it or claims the authority to unilaterally change.
Law is no explanation of anything; law is simply a generalization, a category of facts. Law is neither a cause, nor a reason, nor a power, nor a coercive force. It is nothing but a general formula, a statistical table.
Simply put, violent criminals break the law - any law - every day with impunity.
The whole idea of equal justice under law is completely incompatible with the idea of judges deciding cases according to "empathy".
That which is good for all and any one, For whomsoever- that is good for me. . . What I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal is true law.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!