Comment by lisper
7 months ago
The problem is that if the courts only follow the rule of law some of the time then one must consider the possibility that these selective applications of the law are in service of some extra-legal agenda, in which case the fact that this agenda occasionally aligns with the law doesn't change the fact that the judges are in fact operating with compete disregard for the law except as it occasionally offers the opportunity to cover up their real motives.
Sure, I don't disagree, my point is just that the solution is not to transition from "ignore the law most of the time" to "ignore the law all of the time".
Frankly I'd prefer the latter because that would take away their plausible deniability and make it obvious that the court has gone rogue.
I've seen this attitude an increasing amount over the past few years. I think it's the same thing that's responsible for the current US presidential administration.
There's this attitude of, "this thing is partly broken sometimes. We should make it all broken, all the time, and that will be better".
Is there this faith that some higher power will swoop in afterwards and replace the now completely broken system with something that's good?
I think the result will be, things will simply be much worse than they were before.
1 reply →