if a lawyer or judge believes their job is "enforce the law"
even against the consent of the governed,
then they not only have no legitimate source of authority,
but they also have no competence or understanding of the nature of their job.
either way, they gotta go
that just makes them a predator in a suit or a gown
nothing more.
squishy bag of water posing a threat, clad in woven fibers.
@bweller I agree with the sentiment, but a) lawyers are not activists, they are hired to do a job, b) judges and lawyers are exactly there to operate within the law as decided by parliament and common law. If they don't, appeals get filled on that basis.
Morality and consent are what parliament and juries are for. The former has been on an authoritarian streak for about 20 years now, putting some batshit laws on the statute, and now trying to reduce the latter. Aim the ire there, imho
@agbuckley too much nuremberg defense
part of the job is knowing when one has exceeded the bounds*
"the law" cannot be a cudgel to commit a crime against humanity
*those bounds are set by the consent of the governed, which gives the law its legitimate authority, as a first principle
they are inseparable
@bweller This is food for thought. But as I understand it the room for manoeuvre is only within the match of statute to circumstance.
Barristers would be fired and disciplined for incompetent representation if making non-legal arguments or refusing to prosecute. Judges similarly can't operate via personal perception of the wrongness of the law: disciplinary consequences and retrials.
I don't think one can expect activism from legal pros: the system would nullify it, so what'd be the point?
Becca
Andy Buckley