Talk:United States Department of Justice
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur
My current understanding of this latin motto is "He who is for Lady Justice follows," or possibly "He who is for Lady Justice - Follows (Justice)".
I don't see why it is so difficult to translate this motto. It seems pretty clear to me. What it means is an entirely different matter.
- On a document from 1907, currently in my possession, a piece of cawnbread with the motto clearly says "CUI PRO DOMINO JUSTITIA SEQUITIUR", is "CUI" another way of stating "QUI"? or would it change the reading in any way...Just curious, my latin is a bit ummm.... rusty. I can provide a scan if needed. All the seals found on the internet are said to have "qui" and appear as such on various documents for sale but they are all examples post 1927, visual examples post 1874 and pre 1927 would be very helpful for reference to this matter but are hard to search for.
- Pomegranatered 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the history of the DOJ seal and motto from the DOJ Web site. It seems the best translation is "...who prosecutes on behalf of (Lady) justice", referring to the role of the attorney general. The problem arises because it is apparently not the best Latin (see footnote 1 of the link). Tarfu92 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
CUI can sometimes be written to mean QUI. Also a literal translation would be "who follows for justice as a mistress" since domina doesn't actually mean "lady" and both "domina" and "iustitia" are nouns.==
- There is nothing wrong with translating "domina justitia" as "Lady Justice" - it's called apposition. The modern meaning of "lady" isn't intended here, but rather the medieval female equivalent to a "lord" (which is dominus). I won't immediately discount your statement that cui can be used for qui, but I have never seen it thus and have never heard anything like that. Cui, as it stands, means "to whom". It is nonsensical in this phrase without further context, and was probably an error. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Translation of the Seal
If you translate the seal, it means: "We Care About Illegal Immigrants, Not Taxpayers." Just kidding, of course, but that's what it could stand for these days. <
Where did the current list of duties come from? I was poking around on the DOJ's site and what might make more sense is to use their mission statement:
- To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law
- To ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic
- To provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime
- To seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior
- To ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
Bias in History section
The History section seems oddly biased. It starts out strong with the founding of the department, etc., then trails off into controversies of the last few years. A sentence about Fast and Furious seemly tacked on to the beginning of a paragraph about the limitations of the department. Yet, no mention of the US Attorneys firing scandal of 2006-7. A stand-alone sentence about shutting down poker websites. Odd, and needs a serious edit.
I find the edits of totally retracting nationally significant issues of bad faith acts of the Department of Justice specious. Being that I am in a battle with corruption at the Department of Justice (and my website was actually quoted in this thread for nearly a decade) - someone else needs to address this issue. It is inexplicable how a banter of bias on bad faith acts - "biasedly" removed all such references in total. Laserhaas (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
no section on alleged racial bias?
Improvements to the article
I think the lead section could use some more info on the scope and responsibilities for the DoJ. Right now it's vague and unclear the responsibilities. Right now there isn't an equivalent section within the article besides "Organization" so it could be separate as it's own section for expansion. I'll at least look at adding some of the organizations as worth notable mention in the lead since they are sourced within the article. Shaded0 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)