• HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that there is value in legal systems producing consistent results, especially when it comes to the kind of law both sides can spend millions on. Without consistency, the legal system backs up more than now as rulings are so wildly different that it makes sense to play the lottery with the courts. That causes cases to sit even longer and defense costs to raise higher for smaller participants.

    And if the system doesn’t perform well for those less advantaged, courts aren’t the best place to defend making this systematic change. At best, it acts as a relief valve to pushing actionable political change.

    • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And if the system doesn’t perform well for those less advantaged, courts aren’t the best place to defend making this systematic change. At best, it acts as a relief valve to pushing actionable political change.

      Having a judge who won’t rule your relatively benign protest action to be “terrorism” seems like a good way of supporting systemic change.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But that requires the public voting. In Mexico, it also requires planning out judicial succession as the executive branch has term limits and I expect this would get propagated to the judiciary.