judicial tyranny

John Mage jmage at panix.com
Wed May 16 16:17:39 PDT 2001

Justin Schwartz wrote:

> OK, there's no distinction. The judge just asked to me look up whether some
> plaintiffs can maintain a malicious prosecution action. Shall I say, Judge,
> you are a liberal Democrat, and these are plaintiffs suing a city that "we
> all know" is corrupt. Sure they can. I'll write it that way, because law is
> just politics. I don't need to worry about whether they have satisfied the
> elements of this cause of action, that's just window dressing, ideological
> folderal. Good idea? On the other hand, the plaintiffs are cops, and as
> liberals, don't we hate cops? So maybe we should find for the city because
> cops are bad. Oh, what fun, law is totally indeterminate.
> - --jks
> >
> >Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >>This isn't politics. It's law.
> >
> >Fascinating distinction.
> >
> >Doug

The level of indeterminacy increases with the hierarchy; lowest at trial courts and highest at the Supremes where standards for cert more or less acknowledge the fact. Probably _Bush v. Gore_ was the only case they had in years where it was impossible to craft multiple opinions for multiple outcomes consistent with precedent and the accepted rules of constitutional and statutory construction.

john mage

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list