Comments on: Of the Lawyers, By the Lawyers, For the Lawyers

By: Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:51:06 +0000

If ... you must 08/30/3007... If you haven't read What do you think? at Done with Mirrors; you must. Are the anti-war people really anti-imperialist? If you haven't read Great moments in Maryland's priorities at Maryland Conservatarian; you must. In this story the Governor's of...

By: Dodd

Dodd — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:27:30 +0000

Thank you for the kind words.

As for your questions, the pat answer is that the Legislative and Executive Branches have their checks and balances on the Judiciary by design: The Executive nominates judges and the Senate confirms them (in some states, like mine, judges are elected, providing a direct form of checks and balances). Further, they have other options, as well. When the Hawaii SupCt ruled that the state's Constitution required gay marriage, the legislature put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot. Massachusetts could have followed a similar process. And, of course, the Legislature can impeach judges for misconduct.

Whether these various checks and balances are sufficiently equivalent or have become unbalanced is, I suspect, a matter of perspective.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:39:53 +0000

This was a great article. It is too bad it won't get any further then a discussion. I don't see judges giving up their perceived right to rule in a case so that it goes the direction they personally desire.

I was wondering if you could comment on the other two branches having checks and balances on the judiciary branch. Why can't the executive and legislative branches tell the judges to rule in a manor as you describe as the simplest and most straight forward. Why does only the judiciary branch get to tell the other two they are wrong and to change the way they are doing something? (e.g. MA supreme court telling the legislature to write the law so that same sex marriages were part of the MA constitution)

By: Dodd

Dodd — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:29:39 +0000

"Despite the fact that most lawyers are indeed honourable"

Just because YOU said it doesn't make it so!

Yes, yes. Very droll.

By: MikeT

MikeT — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:07:41 +0000

The public would indeed benefit from simpler laws, one which are based on common definition of words and things like that. Anyone with a common understanding of the American English vernacular should be able to understand the vast majority of the laws of the state. The job of the lawyer should be to help them pick apart the nuances of **their case** to fit it into the clear lines of the law.

Lawyers love complexity, which is one reason I laugh when people talk about the legal profession as though it were as naturally complex and equal to the technical professions. Complexity is the bane of consistency. Ask any engineer who has had to make a sophisticated and flexible product how important simplicity is, and you'll find out that a simple design is at the heart of most good designs. The legal approach seems to be the exact opposite.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:57:40 +0000

"Despite the fact that most lawyers are indeed honourable"

Just because YOU said it doesn't make it so!