3 ms·
I almost think they “like” to word things in this way so they can side step the larger ramifications of their decisions to certain people. It feels frustrating
by ianai 6y ago
I almost think they “like” to word things in this way so they can side step the larger ramifications of their decisions to certain people.
It feels frustrating to those outside the law. But that’s always been true of the law, as far as I’ve read.
Also remember that our legal system is a direct inheritance of the English legal system we separated from in the 1700s. There’s actually more history to our laws than to our country. So to some extent the years of buildup contributing to confusion stem back pretty far into the past. We would have a lot of work ahead of us to reinvent the quirkiness out of the system.
- rayiner 6y agoIt helps if you realize that the English legal system developed as an alternative to trial by combat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat. The point isn't to empower judges to make decisions that have the best "ramifications" "to certain people." It's to reach a decision that people who violently disagree about those "ramifications" are nonetheless forced to accept the result because it was reached in accordance with agreed-upon rules. That's why so many decisions come down to careful parsing of words and "technicalities." A case that reaches the Supreme Court will usually have generated intense controversy about what is the more desirable result. Thus, the focus is on reaching a decision that people can't argue with because of scrupulous adherence to rules and doctrines.