4 ms·

Why? Equitable relief is precedent-setting, and derives from the basis of "whoa, our rules feel 'off', lets give this person a break". If you want the precede

by ABCLAW 9y ago

Why? Equitable relief is precedent-setting, and derives from the basis of "whoa, our rules feel 'off', lets give this person a break". If you want the precedent to be narrowly used, you just write a ruling that makes it clear that the outcome is exceptionally fact specific.

kodablah 9y ago
We should ask our judges not to legislate from the bench by giving narrowly construed decisions contrary to the written law that apply to nobody else. Either every lottery winner in the state is legally right to remain anonymous and collect (be it via changing to a trust whilst remaining anonymous or however) or every one is not. This is not some extreme example and I can definitely see this coming up again.
- dnautics 9y ago
  Very few people talk about this, but there are two categorically different forms of judicial activism - one where judges carve out from themselves or the executive or legislature, powers (usually regulatory) from whole cloth. And one where judges restrict the power of the state (e.g. "the state cannot arrest someone for burning the flag, whether or not such a law exists"). Which one would you suppose a ruling on this falls under?
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > Which one would you suppose a ruling on this falls under? The latter hopefully/clearly. But I don't consider it activism to uniformly apply your interpretation of the law. The activism I was concerned about is narrow application in this supposedly "exceptional" circumstance. Is that a "third form" or is it an extension of the first except they carved it out for someone else?
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  >We should ask our judges not to legislate from the bench Why not? This is a core facet of their job. The tug of war in law between flexibility and certainty is nothing new. In this case you've state the outcome should be either all entitled to anonymity or all restricted from anonymity. Why are those the only two options? Say sociological research shows: 1) people conceal lottery earnings from spouses in the context of divorce with tremendous regularity, and 2) people who obtain lottery earnings are 10x more likely to be killed by distant, financially-at-risk relatives. Should a lottery winner with 3 violent felons with debts in his family be dealt with in the same manner as an upper middle class winner in the middle of a divorce? This is why our judges get to tinker with our rules. Because real life has edge cases.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > This is why our judges get to tinker with our rules. Because real life has edge cases. Real life also has preferences and bias. This is why our judges mostly do not get to tinker with the rules.
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      >This is why our judges mostly do not get to tinker with the rules. They mostly don't tinker, not because they aren't allowed, but because rules are designed to capture the base case, so most cases are anticipated by the rules. This is why most reviews and reporters do not list every banal dispute.
dclowd9901 9y ago
This happens _a lot_ in Supreme Court decisions.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

kodablah 9y ago

We should ask our judges not to legislate from the bench by giving narrowly construed decisions contrary to the written law that apply to nobody else. Either every lottery winner in the state is legally right to remain anonymous and collect (be it via changing to a trust whilst remaining anonymous or however) or every one is not. This is not some extreme example and I can definitely see this coming up again.

dnautics 9y ago
Very few people talk about this, but there are two categorically different forms of judicial activism - one where judges carve out from themselves or the executive or legislature, powers (usually regulatory) from whole cloth. And one where judges restrict the power of the state (e.g. "the state cannot arrest someone for burning the flag, whether or not such a law exists"). Which one would you suppose a ruling on this falls under?
- kodablah 9y ago
  > Which one would you suppose a ruling on this falls under? The latter hopefully/clearly. But I don't consider it activism to uniformly apply your interpretation of the law. The activism I was concerned about is narrow application in this supposedly "exceptional" circumstance. Is that a "third form" or is it an extension of the first except they carved it out for someone else?
ABCLAW 9y ago
>We should ask our judges not to legislate from the bench Why not? This is a core facet of their job. The tug of war in law between flexibility and certainty is nothing new. In this case you've state the outcome should be either all entitled to anonymity or all restricted from anonymity. Why are those the only two options? Say sociological research shows: 1) people conceal lottery earnings from spouses in the context of divorce with tremendous regularity, and 2) people who obtain lottery earnings are 10x more likely to be killed by distant, financially-at-risk relatives. Should a lottery winner with 3 violent felons with debts in his family be dealt with in the same manner as an upper middle class winner in the middle of a divorce? This is why our judges get to tinker with our rules. Because real life has edge cases.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > This is why our judges get to tinker with our rules. Because real life has edge cases. Real life also has preferences and bias. This is why our judges mostly do not get to tinker with the rules.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    >This is why our judges mostly do not get to tinker with the rules. They mostly don't tinker, not because they aren't allowed, but because rules are designed to capture the base case, so most cases are anticipated by the rules. This is why most reviews and reporters do not list every banal dispute.

dclowd9901 9y ago

This happens _a lot_ in Supreme Court decisions.