In practice, those entrusted with the laws are often
influenced by agendas that reflect their own social/economic/political view of
the world and this drives their actions. With the expanding demands we put on
government comes burgeoning bureaucracies with expanding discretion, broadening
the power of officials to set and carry out their own perceived agendas, right
or wrong. In short, government officials
become the “rulers of law.”
The “rule of law” pretense is fostered by our legislators, who deliberately introduce legislation awash with ambiguity, often as a means of providing political cover. As these loosely worded laws are implemented by various government agencies, they are expressed in statutes and government codes in ways that expands the agencies discretion providing them with the cover for interpreting the code and statutes in the broadest possible manner.
The agendas within various government agencies, as perceived by bureaucrats with their own biases, predictably impinge on the rights of citizens and the courts are called upon to adjudicate the dispute; in this process the courts create case law that stands as precedent. Inevitably, one state or federal court’s established precedent comes in conflict with precedents made by judges in other politically influenced jurisdictions, with cases ending up in the Supreme Court were the nine judges apply their own political twist; this contest often ends with the vote of a single person determining the rights of entire populations. The old adage about the importance of a single vote is no truer anywhere in the political landscape than on the Supreme Court and this epitomizes the notion of the tyranny of the majority.
If there were a true and genuine “rule of law”, the decisions in the Supreme Court would be unanimous; the law would clearly speak for itself, any lay citizen would understand and be able to interpret it. But decisions are not unanimous or even clear; they are inevitably agenda driven as judges are appointed who are identified as being from the left, right or center bringing their own personal political philosophies to the bench.
It’s not as if you can take questions addressed in a case, and enter them into a “rule of law” machine that shoots out an answer on the other end. Instead we have legal decisions that often seem arbitrary and that fit the agenda of the government at the time; the application of law by government is more about expedience than justice or fairness. In the final analysis government with its expanding discretion and sovereign immunity is able to “legitimately” produce any result it chooses, under the color of law, with near impunity.
The “rule of law” pretense is fostered by our legislators, who deliberately introduce legislation awash with ambiguity, often as a means of providing political cover. As these loosely worded laws are implemented by various government agencies, they are expressed in statutes and government codes in ways that expands the agencies discretion providing them with the cover for interpreting the code and statutes in the broadest possible manner.
The agendas within various government agencies, as perceived by bureaucrats with their own biases, predictably impinge on the rights of citizens and the courts are called upon to adjudicate the dispute; in this process the courts create case law that stands as precedent. Inevitably, one state or federal court’s established precedent comes in conflict with precedents made by judges in other politically influenced jurisdictions, with cases ending up in the Supreme Court were the nine judges apply their own political twist; this contest often ends with the vote of a single person determining the rights of entire populations. The old adage about the importance of a single vote is no truer anywhere in the political landscape than on the Supreme Court and this epitomizes the notion of the tyranny of the majority.
If there were a true and genuine “rule of law”, the decisions in the Supreme Court would be unanimous; the law would clearly speak for itself, any lay citizen would understand and be able to interpret it. But decisions are not unanimous or even clear; they are inevitably agenda driven as judges are appointed who are identified as being from the left, right or center bringing their own personal political philosophies to the bench.
It’s not as if you can take questions addressed in a case, and enter them into a “rule of law” machine that shoots out an answer on the other end. Instead we have legal decisions that often seem arbitrary and that fit the agenda of the government at the time; the application of law by government is more about expedience than justice or fairness. In the final analysis government with its expanding discretion and sovereign immunity is able to “legitimately” produce any result it chooses, under the color of law, with near impunity.
Copyright
No comments:
Post a Comment