R:
> that's a shame because your view of the legal system is
> conditioned by your
> professional education and experience. your background is
-That opinion may or may not be true.
how does one respond to a generalization like this?
-Personally, I value inside criticism much more than outside criticism, because insiders usually know better where the bodies are burried. Outside criticism often aims at inconsistency with some external norms, which IMHO is not a very effective form of criticism. As a Sufi proverb has it, a fool tries to convince me with his arguments, a wise man - with my own.
personally, i value both. a wise man listens; a fool argues.
-As far as your assertion that judges make the law is concerned - how about the sentencing guidelines? (I almost got a job with the DoJ doing research in connection with establishing them).
this is the only incident i can think of where the legislators mandated the courts follow judicial intent. sadly, it's in the interests of right wing craziness. and if i understand correctly, not at all appealing to judges who are used to making the laws themselves.
> your suggestion that people who don't like the law try having
> it changed (i assume rather than practicing jury
> nullification) shows no understanding of
> the political system. ever try having a law changed
> youself? you don't
> live in an elementary democracy.
--I think it is a rather simplistic view, albeit quite popular in the dissident circles.
actually, wojtek, i'd say your notion that we all go out and get our legislators to change the laws is a terribly simplistic view. as i asked, have you ever been involved in getting legislators to change laws you think need changing?
--A more accurate picture is that it depends what laws and under what circumstances. For example, US has probably one of the most progressive rape shiled and gender discrimination laws in the world, decent consumer protection laws, but quite restrictive labor laws. The passage of a particular laws depends on the configuration of interest groups at any particular time, and the passage of a law intended to benefit one powerful group may incidentally benefitr other much less powerful groups. Bankruptcy lawas may be a case in point.
i'd agree that one must always take individual instances -- and areas of the law -- into consideration. i don't see how current bankruptcy laws benefit anyone except lenders, at least not in California. our national consumer protection laws are being destroyed. several other areas of law are failing to serve justice, the public interest, and social needs. laws are no better than those who enforce them -- which includes the entire legal system. what looks good on paper is often subverted in court; while what's ambiguous on paper gives the courts a field day. as i've mentioned, my experience teaches me our legal system is a political animal. offhand, i can't think of a single area in which it's functional as a third branch of govt.
--Another issue - subjecting the legal system to popular vote would likely create a "tyranny of the majority" which would not necessarily be such a good thing for various minorities, especially those less popular ones (like gays and lesbians).
how about the election of judges? wouldn't that also subject the legal system to a possibility of a tyranny of the majority?
i'm a strong believer in majorities. where this concept fails in the USA is in the fact the people are not educated and not informed about the society in which they live. for example, our mass media is one big propaganda agency promoting conservative points of view. as jefferson put it, paraphrasing, an informed electorate is the key to democracy. we don't have an informed electorate. until such time as we do, a tyranny of the majority is a dangerous likelihood. and the likelihood our legal system will serve the people rather than political ideologues is as remote as ever.
generally, no more than 30 percent of americans registered to vote ever vote (and registered voters represent a small number of american citizens eligible to vote), making a tyranny of the majority highly unlikely as the majority doesn't vote -- or votes with their feet rather than their brains. apparently, we have pretty consistently a tyranny of the minority on several levels.
sorry, doug; this message puts me over my posting limit today by one; i won't post until tomorrow. i did want to answer wojtek's message in a timely manner, as they say in legal circles.
R
Wojtek
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk