Why do we speak in those terms? Why a “sense” of X, as opposed to X itself? Is it because it does not precisely fit into the strict definition of X, but may well be implied by it? “Justice” is often enmeshed with a definition involving morality and the strict bifurcation between “right” and “wrong” — as well as compliance with “the law”.
Personal Injury lawyers will often scoff at the idea that compensatory damages awarded necessarily implies the level of justice received; if that were the case, most people who seek money damages would never be rewarded with the justice sought, whether of a “sense” or not.
Similarly, is there any rationality in discussing the concept of “Justice” in domestic relations cases? Is there a “just cause” to pursue when two people decide to separate, especially when children are involved? Is it all “subjective”, as in the case of “fairness” or “unfairness”? Or is there a more “objective” standard — as in the strict definition where the requirements of X are met by the proof of Y, leading to the unmistakable conclusion that “Justice has been served”? If that were the case, wouldn’t all of “Justice” be a mere tautology?
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who seek to meet the eligibility requirements for Federal Disability Retirement, the “sense of Justice” is achieved by proving one’s case, meeting the preponderance of the evidence test, then obtaining an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
However, to achieve that goal — that “sense of Justice” — one must prepare the groundwork and set the foundation in order to meet the legal criteria posited. In order to do that, it is wise to consult with a FERS Disability Retirement Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, lest your sense of Justice were to fall somewhat short because of a lack of understanding as to what the law requires.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire