6 ms·
Thank you for the links! Then I don't understand something: if this one party supported some topic, any topic, how come said topic is not made into law but only
by soco 2y ago
Thank you for the links! Then I don't understand something: if this one party supported some topic, any topic, how come said topic is not made into law but only lives in the internal regulations of some organization? Courts applying existing law will then by necessity strike those down, by definition: if it's not in the law it will not be recognized by the courts. Simple. So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. I'd say the problem is the parties which don't bother making supporting laws - yes even the parties claiming to support said topic. How can a party holding majorities (in a two party system one party will always have majority) even temporary, not actually make laws? Isn't this the very reason parties exist? So I'm still confused.
- throw0101b 2y ago> So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. The courts are judged by humans who have biases and motivated reasoning: * https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-a-really-bad-decision/ https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-... * http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/cannon-dismissed-trump-classified-documents/679023/ http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/... * https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federal-court-judge-undercuts-important-legal-tool-used-to-eliminate-health-care-fraud/ https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federa... People (judges) sometimes go into court with an pre-conceived notion of what is the 'correct' way to interpret things, and they think it is 'objective', but in fact has been shaped over time by (active) cultural forces: * http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- soco 2y agoMy point was: if there's no law about something I cannot have any expectations from courts, so why there's no law?
- triceratops 2y agoIt's really hard to pass a non-budgetary law without a supermajority.
- claytongulick 2y agoSo the solution is to have the judiciary become defacto legislators?
- triceratops 2y agoThey're doing that right now. That's what defacto means.
- soco 2y agoSo the three powers system is broken? Almost "by design" one could say, although it seemed to have worked for a while, maybe when the level of sophistication was lower (but whose level?). Or maybe there was a time when the actors tried to use the system, not actively seeking tricks to abuse it?
- krapp 2y agoObviously the problem here is that the judicial branch still works too well, and need to be broken like the rest of the government. Then and only then, when every branch of government at every level has so much friction that the offices themselves burn to the ground, will we be able to enjoy the freedom that God and the Founding Fathers intended. If the government that governs least governs best, then the government that governs best doesn't govern at all.
- soco 2y agoWhich would make the founding fathers founding... nothing?
- lupusreal 2y ago