Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ke/ar-AA1jk6Bm
I didn't put this in the Gun thread because it is not the point of my post. Rather it is to give what appears to be a very good example (unless I am missing something) of a case where the obviously right decision is the opposite of the obviously "correct" decision. Should we have a system where such cases can exist? Perhaps there should be some sort of appeals judge who can overrule the decisions that follow the law but are clearly wrong. They do that in poker rooms all the time.
I know that you are going to say that you are just throwing big ideas out there and that the details should be left to those who can be bothered to think about them, but the bolded doesn't seem thought through at all, even if we limit ourselves to federal courts.
First, where does this hypothetical appeals judge (or judges) sit in the judicial hierarchy? Does the judge have the power to review all court decisions or only SCOTUS decisions? If the former, then what is the difference in role between this appeals judge and existing appellate courts and which court hears appeals first? If the latter, are we doing anything besides putting another appellate court on top of the SCOTUS?
Second, as d2 alluded to, we need to distinguish cases where the court is the root cause of the objectionable decision from cases where a bad law (or bad constitution) is the root cause of the objectionable decision. In the former situation, as I said, you are just adding another appellate court into the mix. In the latter situation, you essentially are vesting a judge (or judges) with the enormous power to rewrite or ignore statutory or constitutional law in any situation where the judge thinks, in his or her independent judgment, that adhering to the law would result in a "wrong" decision. To state the obvious, a judge vested with this authority would have enormous power, far more power than any existing court has.
Third, given the enormous power that these new judges will wield, there will be enormous concern over who the judges are, and what they believe. What is the mechanism for selecting these new judges? How will this mechanism avoid all the bullshit that plagues our current process for appointing justices to the SCOTUS?
Fourth, as if often the case with your hypothetical solutions to government problems, you seem to be assuming that this new higher level judge won't function like a human being, but rather will function more like an optimal decision-making robot. Even if we put aside the biggest elephant in the room -- namely, the fact that your idea of optimal, my idea of optimal, and wazz's idea of optimal are all likely to be very different -- there is no particular reason to assume that this new judge will function in the way you imagine. In the real world, this judge is likely to be just as susceptible to error or influence as any other high-level appellate court.