It's remarkable how this keeps going on and on. If only you would think instead of running your mouth.
I'll summarize my position for any readers still here. glitch! wrote:
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law. At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.
In response, I asked the obvious:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
I do the important thing that one does when answering a loaded question. I point out the flawed assumption and why it is flawed. Here, I do not support an unjust court and I pointed out how checks on the power of courts further the cause of justice. Thus, the question in addition to its other unsavory characteristics is irrelevant to my point.
That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.
Once again, your question was not worth answering, but you had to forge on with an annoying and erroneous tu quoque fallacy. You have yet to show why my question was supposedly loaded. It would have at least given me an opportunity to explain the error in your reasoning, should you have tried. But this is the best you mustered:
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.
There's nothing to rebut there since that wasn't even a coherent statement much less a controversial or unjustified assumption of the question I asked. Oh well.
That's when the verbal diarrhea started. You can insist with multiple paragraphs all sorts of false things, but those remain false. Similarly, writing more about dumb ideas and claims doesn't make those any smarter.
Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.
You're not even wrong here. You're not talking about my point at all. It doesn't matter if there are automated systems involved. My point is that if a system like brakes is too responsive (not "responsible" - that is a typo on my part), it means when it is engaged, it is applied too strongly - whether by a human driver or through automated response is irrelevant. It's dangerous either way. One then doesn't make the situation balanced by making other parts of the vehicle too responsive as well.
And it is a huge deal, if we're adding power to various branches of government because other branches have too much power. It's an awful escalation of a bad situation. The problem is that even if you manage to maintain a balance between the branches of government (which I strongly doubt can be managed - more on that later), it's at the expense of everything else - most particularly, the people who aren't getting a boost to their power in this conflict.
But we also have in this escalation, increasing instability. When all branches of government are rather weak, it's fairly easy for the public to keep them under control via voting. But by giving government more and more power, even when theoretically balanced, we increase the likelihood of someone getting the upper hand in this struggle, during a rapidly changing situation or power struggle, and taking over completely before an election can happen to correct that imbalance.
I apologize for the length of the reply, but there was a lot here that needed to be summarized. Human systems of governance will be abused. Those with more wealth and power will exploit those with less. That's why we have courts in the first place. The demands for "justice" show complete ignorance of the problems routinely created when one allows powerful agents to pursue nebulous agenda.