Dear Friends,
It seems to me, a system where what’s legal and what’s illegal, doesn’t rest on common sense, justice, or human heartedness, but on how a microscopic group of elites think it should be… is fundamentally flawed. Flawed in a way so deep and profound that the flaw is a feature. Human systems will naturally have a human element. Even in an AI system of law. Someone had to program the AI. Where a flaw must be introduced, that flaw should be kept as small as possible so it won’t negatively effect the final product. In law however that flaw is magnified not mitigated. Law rests entirely on a judge’s opinion. Certainly not on public opinion. Because, even had the public agreed with Buck v Bell back then, we would have certainly rescinded it by now. Judges, not so much.
The US system isn’t unique in this respect. All legal systems have at their core the opinions of a few powerful people. Who follow Thrasymachus’ version of justice… not that of Socrates, Confucius or Jesus. In what universe does it make sense, for an “International Court,” to fine a nation that produces under 3% of the world’s CO2… because it hasn’t done enough to stop global warming? While a pass is given to the nation that single handedly is responsible for over 30% of the CO2 emissions? Where are the rulings condemning the Armenian genocide in Nargono Karabackh? Would you say the courts in Iran are fair? Justice is a tool the powerful use to justify their avarice. Everywhere. How could I say such a thing? Judging by their actions above and rhetoric below.
The incessant assault on populism by the elite is an example of anti justice rhetoric. How could an elitist judge, who orbits the right circles, find for a populist over an elitist? In that case what is just isn’t expedient. Moreover, that inexpedience is because of the earlier rhetoric. Judges in the US today take stands on political questions all the time now. (As long as they’re politically correct stands). Judge Merchan had a literal monetary stake in the outcome of the Trump trial he oversaw. Yet the system had no problem with that at all. Giving up even the appearance of fairness. Very progressive. Destroying the appearance of justice for the exercise of power. Even as the rest of us are expected to cheer the innovation in despotism. All of which proves that judges are a flawed instrument of justice.
Then there’s the flawed idea of “standing.” A legal innovation to forbid politically disfavored plaintiffs from legal remedy. This flawed notion has been exploited to great effect, in the religious exemption vaccine cases, the 2020 election cases, and even disputes between states themselves! Which is the kind of thing that leads to literal war between the states. Nevertheless, the lazy experts in the legal system claim, standing is a vital doctrine to lower their case load. Because they would rather use their OP authority to step on the downtrodden, than to settle the big questions of law in the name of justice. That would be self harming, and no elite would do that. They didn’t get to be the rich and powerful by charity. Unless they ran a charity fraud like the Clinton’s red barn con in Haiti.
All systems of law can be turned on a dime by a court ruling. Constitutional Rights can be nullified, precedent can be overturned and whole new rights created. Like gold from base metal. All at the clap of a gavel. By people with a stake in perverting the system to their own benefit. Self interest goes a long way in effecting human behavior. We see this in cases like Wickard v Filburn, where the court gave the government unlimited power to regulate. Buck v Bell so the government can sterilize us at will against our wishes… and has been used as a silent genocide of Indians as well as the mentally deficient. Until the human element of the legal system is removed, all law will ever be, is the manifestation of the despotic power of the few, masquerading as legitimate authority over the many.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
