3 ms·
On your third point: I think the frequency with which courts have been asked to take up societal issues is a symptom of general, systemic legislative corruption
by nescioquid 4y ago
On your third point: I think the frequency with which courts have been asked to take up societal issues is a symptom of general, systemic legislative corruption and pusillanimity.
Pusillanimity on social issues (why abortion went to he courts and why HRC decided gay marriage is okay only after it went to the court). Corruption (mostly institutionalized) on everything else that matters to the donor class.
If we were living in a functioning democracy, I'd take your point about using courts as an "end-run". On the contrary, I consider going to the courts for redress on societal issues to be a lesser alternative to democracy.
- 4wsn 4y agoI don't disagree with the patient's diagnosis, but my issue is with what would happen if we were living in, as you put it, "a functional democracy". Contemporary democracy isn't new. Has it ever delivered what you claim it would if it were functional? I could be wrong, but I can't think of a historical period where it did. Seems to me like it's working as designed, if not what people think it's designed to do.