50 ms·
See, while I agree that loopholes will abound — basically your whole last paragraph I completely acknowledge — I also want to point out the deeply insincere and
by xp84 2y ago
See, while I agree that loopholes will abound — basically your whole last paragraph I completely acknowledge — I also want to point out the deeply insincere and frequently malicious people who appoint and confirm judges now. From both of our cravenly corrupt parties. If anything, since common sense is not even uncommon, it’s nearly extinct, we need even more fine-grained explicit laws, if of course we had a useful Congress to pass laws with any degree of seriousness, which we also don’t.
Basically (speaking from a US perspective) we’re doomed either way.
- somenameforme 2y agoMany states assign judges through nonpartisan elections. I mean I do, more or less, agree with you but at the same time there's quite a lot of checks and balances - judges, appelates, constitutional review, and the final judge - juries. The entire government was intentionally designed to be mostly nonfunctional to prevent a tyranny of the majority (or minority). It's hard to really do things, and have them stick, unless there's pretty wide consensus. I'd also add that the more simple laws add transparency. If a e.g. judge does something not in the apparent spirit of a older law, it's apparent to anybody with a mind. But when instead an offender (or judge) relies on a nuanced, if esoteric, interpretation to a loophole in section 274, subsection 74 paragraph 13a, nobody has any clue what's happening. And if we're screwed either way, it'd be nice if people could at least visibly and explicitly see that they're being screwed.