What's frustrating here is that so much of our government depends on actual case law.
This it's possible for massive injustice to happen for decades before we have a resolution.
This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution except to fight it out and get it in front of the Supreme course.
The alternative to case law is that ambiguities in the statute are interpreted differently each time. Being subject to the law, I would much rather live in a system designed to automatically reduce ambiguities over time, rather than to have to wait for the legislature to have the political will and resources to address them.
That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.
Nobody said it solves the problem. The point is that it helps.
Also, "I am not going to use an unjust power that I have" is hardly an abdication of their role, it's just a choice made using the power of the office.
The problem is that it's /not/ a power they have, and ought to be shut down by the judicial ASAP. The only reason it's not is because it's not been prosecuted for prior administrations, and has become a pattern of laxity, allowing the legislative to claim to wash their hands of culpability when a law they stand for in public isn't acted on in private.
Correct, but refusal to enforce a law is one of the checks the executive has on the legislature. When this happens it's up to the judiciary to mediate.
That doesn't /seem/ right - executive can /veto/ a law before it is passed, but I don't believe they are given the ability to not enforce that law once it's been passed. That is effectively creating law, and is reaching into the legislative branch, still.
But that is the way it works, take the marijuana legalization state laws. Technically, its still against federal law, but the feds have basically agreed not to prosecute growers/distributors/users in those states.
It was actually a giant question when trump came into office whether he would start arresting people working/running the legal pot shops in Colorado/etc.
So, there are a lot of other cases, where statutes are simply not enforced, but haven't been removed due to lack of political will. Sodomy/etc laws are another area, where they remain on the books despite a number of supreme court rulings declaring various aspects unconstitutional. That means its quite possible depending on where you live frequently performed acts, not explicitly allowed by the supreme court are actually illegal.
Correct. There's a difference between what theoretically should be, and what we actually see happening, and what is enforced. The legislative branch seems happy to abdicate /its/ role to the administrative in the states when it finds it convenient to do so.
You've got a fair point. I don't know if there's a process for the executive to submit such a passed law to the judicial in the first place, before it takes effect.
The USA is a common-law jurisdiction which means that convention and "how things were always done" have outsized significance when compared to civil-law jurisdictions like much of western Europe. Civil-law jurisdictions tend to rely more on statute, but they also have legislatures that can actually get things done, rather than cultivate this bogus adversarial relationship between the people and the government wherein the government is obstructed or hindered from getting all but the most critical and unanimously supported things done.
I agree that the structure of American democracy allows for the dysfunctional equilibrium that the US Congress presently finds themselves in, and I agree that some of that structure is in contrast to other contemporary classically liberal democracies.
But even a more functional and productive legislature does not have the same bandwidth to look at individual ambiguities, nor the mandate to do so, thats found in the federal appellate courts. Moreover, the reliance on case law does not remove the legislature's ability to adjust the statute when they believe that case law has got things wrong.
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I see civil-law jurisdictions as having strictly fewer resources to clarify ambiguities in the law when compared to common-law jurisdictions. Although some civil-law jurisdictions happen to also have more productive and responsive legislative and regulatory bodies, as far as I can tell, that's unrelated to their use of civil-law.
It is not unrelated, because it means that the lawmakers have to be more careful and take their jobs as legislators and writers of policy seriously, instead of merely yelling for a living.
In civil law jurisdictions, the law is what the legislator says it is, no more, no less. What you write is what the law is, period. Judges can take each others advice and try to apply it consistently, but they can't go beyond or against what's written.
In common law jurisdictions, the law is ancient and practically unknowable. Your laws can be struck down for being out of whack with some older precedent, or it can be re-interpreted to be something better or worse than it is. It is common in common law jurisdictions for legislators to poop out something vague and inconsistent and then rely on the courts and the regulators to turn it into actual policy.
All I'm saying is that the USA relies too heavily on case law, tradition, and precedent, allowing corrupt practice to become entrenched and resistant to extirpation far too easily -- not that these things should be eliminated.
To my understanding, "common-law" technically refers to the body of precedent that the United States grandfathered in from English jurisprudence and prior colonial practice into the new United States government, as opposed to "precedence", which is the general principle by which prior rulings at the right scope are respected like statutes are. But that's just a semantic quibble.
But on the question of the weight that precedence carries: I'd be curious how you feel about federally enforce integration of schools as a result of Brown v. Board of Education, or abortion as a right thanks to Roe v. Wade, as two examples of seminal increases of rights resulting from the heavy role of precedence.
Personally I'm a bit of a hybrid in my own opinion. I'm partial to the sentiment that the legislature is the supreme branch of the Government, being the representatives of the people. So in principle, I'm opposed to drastically new doctrines arriving by way of court ruling, especially when they seem a little too "creative" and go outside the scope of interpreting existing law and statute into the territory of what "ought to be law". I prefer that such significant changes be a matter of federal statute, or when they're a matter of novel constitutional interpretation, that they originate in actual constitutional amendment. (Though even then in the case of federal statute, there are very real questions about how and when the federal Congress may override the states, and jurisprudence/precedence has been an important part of working out those questions).
But on the other hand, I am strong a believer that once a court with sufficient scope and jurisdiction has ruled, and a further appeals process is either at a dead end or would be too injurious for various reasons, then upholding the rule of law is of preeminent importance to the stability of society against the breakout of violence or factionalism. So, for example, in the case of Roe v. Wade, I feel the ruling was far too creative and far too tenuous in its actual references to the Constitution. Nevertheless, it is now the law of the land, and if I want the other protections the government provides and protects for me, I feel it would be hypocritical to flout that law just in the cases that I prefer. I actually feel that the outcome of Roe v. Wade was morally egregious; but I won't rebel against it or seek redress outside the established legal order unless I feel ready to morally take responsibility for the potential consequences of anarchy or of violence outside the civil order. Of course, not every question of civil disobedience is realistically divisive or pervasive enough that civil war is likely if I or others rebel. But civil war and anarchy can be the product of a thousand cuts, as it war, and if I had to oversimplify and take it to an extreme, I would say that I do not feel morally justified in flouting a nationally established law unless I feel sure that even the risk of widespread death and war might be warranted. Even with ongoing inequities and injustices (sometimes severe and chronic) in American Society, I still personally feel we generally (generally!) enjoy such a magnitude of protection, liberty, and privilege in this country, and I'm not sure that risking that is truly moral on the balance.
> What's frustrating here is that so much of our government depends on actual case law.
I'm not sure what's so frustrating about this in principle. It moderates a rush to judgment and lets people work out details, corner cases and flaws of laws.
There's nothing stopping legislatures changing statutes in response to court cases.
(This is not meant as a defense of civil forfeiture which I consider an abomination).
> This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution
Problems caused by tech often have tech solutions as well. I think it's a mistake to assume the justice system is the best place to address "evil". More evil and injustice is addressed by individuals, innovation and grass roots movements than the courts.
This it's possible for massive injustice to happen for decades before we have a resolution.
This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution except to fight it out and get it in front of the Supreme course.