NationStates Jolt Archive

This is specifically related to the US and the US Supreme Court, but I suppose it could be applicable for common-law in general.

I propose we get rid of the upper structure of the judiciary, with the SCOTUSA and the appellate courts. Then, after we get rid of them, we can have a sprinkling of appellate courts all about the country. They will all be equal to one another. When someone appeals a decision, they can take it to whichever appellate court they so choose. If they don't like the decision, they can take it to another appellate court. If they don't like that decision, they can take it to another appellate court, and on and on they can go without end.

Some may think it would just be outright anarchy, but I believe it would regulate itself. Each court will want to preserve its stature- if they run around invalidating every other court's decisions for no apparent reason, the other courts will ignore them, and, seeing that taking their case to the rogue court would just be overruled and end up just being a cost to them, they will not take their cases to these courts. Also, if the justices do not fulfill their duties, they can be impeached and removed from the bench. This will keep the courts more or less in line.

Well, that takes care of the court side of the problem, but what about people running around appealling willy-nilly? Other than the fact that it would be prohibitively expensive to just run around appealing to every court, there would be a developing precedent with each case that can be relied upon to reach a decision. The courts would be compelled to follow precedent to maintain their stature, and each successive trial would make the next outcome more and more static from the last. Additionally, if some idiot is just running amuck, the courts could fine him for being so frivolous. This will keep the other side of the trial under control.

What will eventually happen is that the courts will discuss the issues and develop them through precedent for as long as it is necessary, until there is a good decision that is made that can be applied for other trials. There will not be a single arbitration that is free from precedent but still carries all the power of jurisprudence- instead, decisions will be made meticulously, be well thought out, and be workable. With the more precedent, the more quickly we can come to each conclusion, but we can still have the opportunity for more appeals if there is some problem with the decisions wrought.

Such a decentralized judiciary system would not be an anarchy, but rather be a system in which liberty and reason will rule.

Laws would have no meaning or enforcement, because you could just appeal somewhere else.

And there would be no single unified voice on any issue.

*snip*Such a decentralized judiciary system would not be an anarchy, but rather be a system in which liberty and reason will rule.*snip*

Only if you can pay the rediculous legal fees. Unless you're a huge multinational, most groups can only scrape enough funds for one shot. Your system would inherently disadvantage the average person, and would create a system biased towards the super wealthy.

Laws would have no meaning or enforcement, because you could just appeal somewhere else.

And there would be no single unified voice on any issue.

1. Please explain how this would be so, even though I provide evidence to the contrary.

2. What good is a debate if there's only one person talking? We shouldn't have just one person or small group deciding everything. We should instead build up precedent to reach logical conclusions to the various issues that would come to court. That would be the most fair and rational way of going about with arbitration.

Only if you can pay the rediculous legal fees. Unless you're a huge multinational, most groups can only scrape enough funds for one shot. Your system would inherently disadvantage the average person, and would create a system biased towards the super wealthy.

But these people can be fined if they are just running around appealing willy-nilly. If the decision changes, it's because it is logically sound to do so.

1. Please explain how this would be so, even though I provide evidence to the contrary.

Say you are *gasp* arrested for smoking pot. Fine, appeal under unconsitutional grounds. You lose, you move on to the next judge, probably in the next mini-city-state (as local laws would be inapplicable) and try again. But it wouldnt matter in your local area because the other court has no jurisdiction.

the point is conflicting interest screws it. You say a small minority shouldnt change the laws, but this is no change. The small minority of judges are the same as SCOTUS. Their tally decides the laws. It is like a vote of the Supreme Court! It just complicates the process and favors those ca$hlover$ who can afford multiple cases.

2. What good is a debate if there's only one person talking? We shouldn't have just one person or small group deciding everything. We should instead build up precedent to reach logical conclusions to the various issues that would come to court. That would be the most fair and rational way of going about with arbitration.

Your judges are a small group that determine the debates.

people can be fined if they are just running around appealing willy-nilly. If the decision changes, it's because it is logically sound to do so.

But it could be appealed in another appellate court. They all have concurrent jurisdiction, so one has as many appeals as there are appelate courts.

But it could be appealed in another appellate court. They all have concurrent jurisdiction, so one has as many appeals as there are appelate courts.

Hence, no one courts wields true power, and the logical conlcusion could be appealed into oblivion too.

Say you are *gasp* arrested for smoking pot. Fine, appeal under unconsitutional grounds. You lose, you move on to the next judge, probably in the next mini-city-state (as local laws would be inapplicable) and try again. But it wouldnt matter in your local area because the other court has no jurisdiction.

the point is conflicting interest screws it. You say a small minority shouldnt change the laws, but this is no change. The small minority of judges are the same as SCOTUS. Their tally decides the laws. It is like a vote of the Supreme Court! It just complicates the process and favors those ca$hlover$ who can afford multiple cases.



Your judges are a small group that determine the debates.

Well, if the law is unconstitutional, it should be challenged, shouldn't it? We shouldn't have any unconstitutional laws. Also, these courts have national jurisdiction. I'm not talking about state and local appellate courts. It may be somewhat similar to SCOTUSA votes, but it mostly isn't, because, unlike the SCOTUSA which hands down decisions from on high, these appellate courts must build precedent with one another. So, we have jurisprudence that is effectively controlled by precedent. And so what if it's complicated? The human body is very complicated- does that make it bad? No- it's complicated because it's more or less the best way to go about things. Also, about expenses, the same could be said of our current system with several steps. I doubt that most people would be willing to pump all their money into the courts in decisions, and most people would look suspiciously on lawyers who encourage them to do so. The marginal productivity of more appeals would be rapidly declining, and be negative eventually (with certain expenses, little chance of change, and the possibility of fines for frivolousness).

But it could be appealed in another appellate court. They all have concurrent jurisdiction, so one has as many appeals as there are appelate courts.

Hence, no one courts wields true power, and the logical conlcusion could be appealed into oblivion too.

But this would not be so, because A.) The courts do not want everyone else ripping their precedents apart, and congress does not want to appoint judges who will reject the other judges decisions and then get promptly rejected themselves, and B.) There is a quick marginal decline in continuing litigation for the client, in that precedent will develop favoring the current decisions, there will always be court fees, and they may be fined for frivolous lawsuits.