3 ms·
> All of the justices ask sharp questions despite media loving to portray them as clowns or partisan hacks. The intent of laws is to be understandable at speci
by avmich 2y ago
> All of the justices ask sharp questions despite media loving to portray them as clowns or partisan hacks.
The intent of laws is to be understandable at specifying and clear in application. If it takes efforts of highly professional people to determine the application and explain the rationale - the latter part often not really done - then those sharp questions aren't worth much, and loving to portray as clowns gets quite old and turns into hopeless illustrations of the lost of reason in the important activity.
> They really don’t like pitting two principles against each other.
They shouldn't have any animosity here. If two principles do conflict, it's not the judges' job to invent a solution - they have to uncover the conflict, make it visible - a sort of a bug report - and apply some decision, with all caveats clearly stated.
- janalsncm 2y agoIt’s not that you have to be professional to understand, it’s that professionals reliably do. The vast majority of Americans can’t even name what the Bill of Rights does, or what the enumerated powers of Congress are, for example. It’s not that these are inaccessible pieces of knowledge, but people aren’t aware of them. With a basic grounding in civics and after brushing up on the laws in question, I think most people could follow along.
- threatofrain 2y agoNo, they can't. There is no legal codebase in the world that is grokkable to ordinary people anymore. 8th grade story-telling level of understanding is not the performance level you need in the legal game. That's enough understanding to make you sound smart while getting into trouble.