Greill
13-10-2006, 03:08
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.
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.