Hacker News Reader

Comment by margalabargala | Hacker News Reader

So we have some cases where the courts follow the rule of law, and others where the stretch reality to come to insane but convenient conclusions, like in your example.

You're right, it's absolutely applied selectively. But, while it would be nice to have an insane, illegal, but convenient conclusion in our favor, that does not mean we should criticize the courts for following the rule of law rather than coming to an insane, illegal conclusion.

View on HN

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.

I don't want to make it all broken. I would much prefer it not to be broken at all. I would much prefer if the courts just followed the law all the time. But if it's going to be broke, if the courts are not going to follow the law, I'd much prefer they do it all the time so that it is obvious that they are not following the law, and then maybe people will notice and do something about it.

The real problem I think is that no one seems to actually want the courts to follow the law. Everyone wants the courts to bend the law to their own desires, and so everyone gives them a pass when they do this. And that's how we end up in situations like we are in now.

Doesn't mean much when "rule of law" is just a polite way of stating "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law"

It sort of does mean that. If the courts selectively rule in favor of one class, and we can’t do anything about it, then the best thing to do may absolutely be to encourage selective rulings against them.

I see why you say that, but I prefer the long term results of fighting against insane rulings when they're bad, rather than the long term effects of fighting for insane rulings on the occasions that I find them convenient.

I don’t think we can successfully fight insane rulings in the near future. It’s on the same order as getting money out of politics; disagrees completely with the current incentives of the system and would require a massive political push. It seems to me that the system is working as intended in allowing insane rulings, and that we should attempt to use that to our advantage, since the powerful absolutely will continue to do so and there’s basically jack shit we can do about it right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com