4 ms·

This 1000%. The check that courts have over legislature is constitutionality. If a law is not what the legislature intended (or if the intention has changed) th

This 1000%. The check that courts have over legislature is constitutionality. If a law is not what the legislature intended (or if the intention has changed) then they have the power to change their minds. Courts do not make laws, they interpret them. Problem is that legislature has (in general) stopped doing their job so the "functional" court system is forced to re-interpret older and older laws; increasing their power relative to the other branches.

maerF0x0 5y ago
Also it's good when courts enforce poorly written laws as a forcing function to have law makers (legislature) write useful laws. Sometimes the laws as written are nearly useless
- dolni 5y ago
  I don't agree. That's an overly-simplified, idealistic view. Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. Our courts should help serve as a last line of defense against that, when appropriate.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Serving as a “last line of defense” is a policy choice. That turns courts from legal institutions to political institutions, and we don’t want them to be political institutions because policy is arbitrary and why we have legislatures in the first place: they’re functionally power-sharing forums, and the constitutions instituting them power-sharing agreements.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    That just becomes a dictatorship of the judiciary, who often times cannot be voted out.
    - dolni 5y ago
      There are checks and balances in place for a reason. Remember that (at least in the US) the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Both the executive and legislative branches have a ton of power in deciding how law is created and applied. Lastly, judges usually can't be voted out at the federal level, but there are often local elections for judges. Congress has the ability to remove judges that are problematic.
      - SllX 5y ago
        That co-equal nonsense is Nixon era propaganda from when he was gearing up to fight impeachment. The fact that Congress buys into it and sells the merch because it is made up of people who don’t want to actually do their job is just another of a long list of disappointments that Congress churns out on the regular, but to put this in perspective: by the letter of the Constitution only Congress can impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches. They are not co-equal, they are supreme and are the Article I branch for a good reason.
        dolni 5y ago
        Congress certainly has some extraordinary powers. The exercise of those powers also requires an extraordinarily large hurdle be cleared. Whereas the President can issue sweeping policy changes via executive order and veto non-supermajority legislation (a ONE person decision), Congress requires a majority in one chamber to initiate impeachment and a super-majority in the other to convict. Look at Trump. Every reason in the world to impeach, and even that failed. So much for supremacy, it seems.
        SllX 5y ago
        That’s the thing though. The President only has the powers as designated in the Constitution, mostly in Article II, and what Congress gives him per their legislative authority. Any power they have given, they can also strip away. Any office they have instituted, they can also remove. Any cabinet position they created can also be removed. Any Presidential appointment including Article III judges and justices can be impeached and removed. Executive orders only go as far as the President’s authority either over his branch (the entire Executive power) or through laws which he is charged to enforce. The reason he has a lot of discretion is precisely because Congress gives a lot of discretion, and they really don’t have to. But, somehow we have managed to for a while now elect mostly mooks that don’t particularly want their power. The framers imagined branches of government which would jealously guard the powers they did have, but that doesn’t really work if a branch is not jealously guarding its own power. Open primaries were probably a mistake, because it leaves legislators vulnerable to primary challengers backed by Presidents and other powerful Government Officers.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. I agree. I was more talking about the kinds of cases where a law is pragmatically unenforceable. Eg: where you could never make a reasonable case that a thing happened, or that the penalties have given the courts leeway to bring basically no consequence to an action. Perhaps the part that could have been more clear was "enforce" to which I more meant "enact"? I didn't mean apply costly consequences so much as "go through the motions". There also is another subcase where I didnt bring up before, such as police not bothering due to effort:outcome ratio -- forexample police don't bother to go after bicycle thieves in san francisco
sdenton4 5y ago
Specifically, the US national legislature is failing. /State/ legislatures have no problem passing laws, some really good, and some absolutely terrifying.

maerF0x0 5y ago

Also it's good when courts enforce poorly written laws as a forcing function to have law makers (legislature) write useful laws. Sometimes the laws as written are nearly useless

dolni 5y ago
I don't agree. That's an overly-simplified, idealistic view. Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. Our courts should help serve as a last line of defense against that, when appropriate.
- SllX 5y ago
  Serving as a “last line of defense” is a policy choice. That turns courts from legal institutions to political institutions, and we don’t want them to be political institutions because policy is arbitrary and why we have legislatures in the first place: they’re functionally power-sharing forums, and the constitutions instituting them power-sharing agreements.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  That just becomes a dictatorship of the judiciary, who often times cannot be voted out.
  - dolni 5y ago
    There are checks and balances in place for a reason. Remember that (at least in the US) the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Both the executive and legislative branches have a ton of power in deciding how law is created and applied. Lastly, judges usually can't be voted out at the federal level, but there are often local elections for judges. Congress has the ability to remove judges that are problematic.
    - SllX 5y ago
      That co-equal nonsense is Nixon era propaganda from when he was gearing up to fight impeachment. The fact that Congress buys into it and sells the merch because it is made up of people who don’t want to actually do their job is just another of a long list of disappointments that Congress churns out on the regular, but to put this in perspective: by the letter of the Constitution only Congress can impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches. They are not co-equal, they are supreme and are the Article I branch for a good reason.
      - dolni 5y ago
        Congress certainly has some extraordinary powers. The exercise of those powers also requires an extraordinarily large hurdle be cleared. Whereas the President can issue sweeping policy changes via executive order and veto non-supermajority legislation (a ONE person decision), Congress requires a majority in one chamber to initiate impeachment and a super-majority in the other to convict. Look at Trump. Every reason in the world to impeach, and even that failed. So much for supremacy, it seems.
        SllX 5y ago
        That’s the thing though. The President only has the powers as designated in the Constitution, mostly in Article II, and what Congress gives him per their legislative authority. Any power they have given, they can also strip away. Any office they have instituted, they can also remove. Any cabinet position they created can also be removed. Any Presidential appointment including Article III judges and justices can be impeached and removed. Executive orders only go as far as the President’s authority either over his branch (the entire Executive power) or through laws which he is charged to enforce. The reason he has a lot of discretion is precisely because Congress gives a lot of discretion, and they really don’t have to. But, somehow we have managed to for a while now elect mostly mooks that don’t particularly want their power. The framers imagined branches of government which would jealously guard the powers they did have, but that doesn’t really work if a branch is not jealously guarding its own power. Open primaries were probably a mistake, because it leaves legislators vulnerable to primary challengers backed by Presidents and other powerful Government Officers.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. I agree. I was more talking about the kinds of cases where a law is pragmatically unenforceable. Eg: where you could never make a reasonable case that a thing happened, or that the penalties have given the courts leeway to bring basically no consequence to an action. Perhaps the part that could have been more clear was "enforce" to which I more meant "enact"? I didn't mean apply costly consequences so much as "go through the motions". There also is another subcase where I didnt bring up before, such as police not bothering due to effort:outcome ratio -- forexample police don't bother to go after bicycle thieves in san francisco

sdenton4 5y ago

Specifically, the US national legislature is failing. /State/ legislatures have no problem passing laws, some really good, and some absolutely terrifying.