3 ms·

If the government cannot give you a definitive opinion whether you are breaking the law, the government has no mandate to rule. Rule of law means having clear

If the government cannot give you a definitive opinion whether you are breaking the law, the government has no mandate to rule. Rule of law means having clear guidance on what is or isn't illegal. Vague guidance that everyone in the industry "might" be breaking the law isn't responsible, it's setting up a mechanism to trade favors and selectively prosecute enemies to reward friends. Be better, guys. This isn't the right take.

throwway120385 2y ago
Rule of law means that an unbiased judge with an understanding of the relevant precedents allows two litigants to argue their cases on the merits of the case and of the evidence, and then when the judge or jury renders a judgement, the society accepts the judgement and allows any consequences to be carried out without regard for who the judgement is for or against. It has nothing to do with "clear guidance" because what is clear as day to one person may be totally unfathomable to another. I guarantee that you or I could find two statutes together that make perfect sense to me but which you do not understand, and vice-versa. That's why we have attorneys and judges.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  People have a right to know, in advance of an action, whether the AG or DOJ will wish to prosecute it. If the AG or DOJ haven't made their position clear, you should be able to ask, and they will give a clear answer. That is an extremely basic rule of civilized governance. You can't wordplay around it. This is not the entire legal system, but it is a critical part of it.
- tacitusarc 2y ago
  This is pretty inaccurate. Absent actual laws that people are aware of, you described rule of man, the opposing governance form. Rule of laws means there are known laws everyone has to follow no matter who they are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- nradov 2y ago
  No, that's not how it's supposed to work. Laws are supposed to comply with the vagueness doctrine. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine
hereweareagain 2y ago
That's not at all how the judicial system works. Do you know what legal precedent means? Many things are uncertain legality until tested in a court of law.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  No, whether the AG is has the correct interpretation of the law is tested in court. The AG's stance on whether an action is a crime, and their policy towards prosecution, does not need to be tested in court. That is something they can communicate without litigation.
  - monocasa 2y ago
    That sounds like what they're doing. This whole thing is about the AG writing two legal advisories, not explicitly beginning the litigation process.

throwway120385 2y ago

Rule of law means that an unbiased judge with an understanding of the relevant precedents allows two litigants to argue their cases on the merits of the case and of the evidence, and then when the judge or jury renders a judgement, the society accepts the judgement and allows any consequences to be carried out without regard for who the judgement is for or against. It has nothing to do with "clear guidance" because what is clear as day to one person may be totally unfathomable to another. I guarantee that you or I could find two statutes together that make perfect sense to me but which you do not understand, and vice-versa. That's why we have attorneys and judges.

bpodgursky 2y ago
People have a right to know, in advance of an action, whether the AG or DOJ will wish to prosecute it. If the AG or DOJ haven't made their position clear, you should be able to ask, and they will give a clear answer. That is an extremely basic rule of civilized governance. You can't wordplay around it. This is not the entire legal system, but it is a critical part of it.
tacitusarc 2y ago
This is pretty inaccurate. Absent actual laws that people are aware of, you described rule of man, the opposing governance form. Rule of laws means there are known laws everyone has to follow no matter who they are. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
nradov 2y ago
No, that's not how it's supposed to work. Laws are supposed to comply with the vagueness doctrine. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine

hereweareagain 2y ago

That's not at all how the judicial system works. Do you know what legal precedent means? Many things are uncertain legality until tested in a court of law.

bpodgursky 2y ago
No, whether the AG is has the correct interpretation of the law is tested in court. The AG's stance on whether an action is a crime, and their policy towards prosecution, does not need to be tested in court. That is something they can communicate without litigation.
- monocasa 2y ago
  That sounds like what they're doing. This whole thing is about the AG writing two legal advisories, not explicitly beginning the litigation process.