BLUF: There is a concerning trend of judiciary decisions seemingly being influenced by personal beliefs rather than objective rule of law in the United States, potentially eroding trust in the system and undermining societal stability. These instances highlight the urgency of having a contingency plan amidst political, economic, and social uncertainties.
INTELWAR BLUF: During the prosperous era of the Roaring 20s, an American investor named Evelyn Gregory found a legal workaround to lower her hefty tax bill. Although questioned by the IRS, her actions were affirmed as legal by Judge Learned Hand, who stated no one is obligated to pay more taxes than the law demands. Interestingly, Judge Hand was a staunch progressive who personally believed in high taxes funding social programs, but still upheld the impartiality of the law.
However, it seems that the firm boundary between personal belief and judicial duty is blurring. Multiple instances in recent years hint at judges prioritizing personal ideology over impartial interpretation of the law. This includes extra speaking time for women and minority lawyers, judicial candidacies running on explicitly progressive platforms, and even the Hawaiian Supreme Court citing the “Spirit of Aloha” as a ruling principle. These shifts threaten to further undermine trust in an already challenged system.
As the US wrestles with considerable economic, political, and social issues, maintaining a clear and unbiased application of the law is more crucial than ever. Individuals should consider contingency plans to safeguard against potential instability.
RIGHT: From a libertarian standpoint, these instances highlight disturbing trends in the judicial world. The impartiality and objectivity that grounds any credible justice system seem to be drifting towards personal ideologies. It’s troubling to see judges imposing their beliefs onto their professional duties, abandoning the core tenet of ‘Rule of Law’. While we may not agree with every law on the books, it’s essential that they are applied uniformly, without distortion according to personal agendas.
LEFT: As a progressive, ensuring fair representation and striving to address social inequalities are positive endeavors. However, these should not be pursued at the cost of the integrity of our judiciary system. Courts interpreting the law based on personal convictions or political leanings jeopardize the very bedrock of our democracy. We ought to effect changes through legislative processes, not bending the judiciary system to mirror our respective ideologies.
AI: From an AI perspective, this trend to personalize judiciary decisions could create a legal system that is less predictable, more fragmented and filled with inherent bias. One of the fundamental principles of a stable legal system is the ‘Rule of Law’, the idea that laws should be applied evenly, objectively and without prejudice. Continued personalization of judiciary decisions hinders this principle and further erodes trust in the system. While it is important for systems to evolve and adapt, those changes should be accomplished through legislative processes, not imposed personal perspective in the interpretation of existing laws.