The American legal system has a flaw, and the flaw is that after the trial, all that’s left is appeals, and appeals courts basically cannot review facts. If a jury reaches a bad verdict by getting the facts wrong or by allowing their ignorance or prejudice to take over, the appeals process doesn’t allow the appeals courts to fix that.
The appeals process is based on reviewing mostly procedures and the application of law and precedents under The Constitution. And serious legal disputes can end up in America’s ultimate court of appeals, The Supreme Court.
I’ve had to explain to family and friends on many occasions that it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court (the ultimate appeals court in our system) to come up with a better decision beyond making sure that the laws and methods applied in the lower courts align properly with the provisions of the Constitution or whether laws were applied properly.
They do sometimes have to look at practical facts. Today, the court heard arguments regarding a law, written in response to the Las Vegas massacre, outlawing bump stocks, but only to decide its constitutionality. Apparently, the main thrust of questions had to do with whether a semiautomatic assault-style rifle with a bump stock modification qualified as a machine gun under laws written back when machine guns were “tommy guns.”
If the Supreme Court issues a ruling we don’t like, there are only three practical solutions: 1) change the applicable laws, 2) amend the Constitution, and 3) “pack” the Supreme Court, which is the worst possible solution because…where does that approach end?
One more flaw, not the subject here, but worthy of mention, is the sluggishness of the American system. Which can be a good thing by preventing rash ill thought out legislation. But that’s in theory: It doesn’t always work that way.
Reg the Fronkey Farmer 1 year ago.
