Rule by lawyers?

While I agree in principle with my co-blogger that a law developed via trial and error (no pun intended) is preferable in nearly all cases to a body of law made arbitrarily by politicians, I do have to say that the prospect of hashing out all societal differences in the current legal system of the US to be a fairly daunting image...

I'll step out of my league a bit and say that, in my view, our legal system is quite good at a number of things, but also quite bad at a host of other things, one of which being how to deal with matters that have no precedent, and for dealing with societal problems that cut across libertarian principles (such as abortion). When tasked to deal with those sorts of problems, our legal system becomes just as bad as (or in some cases worse than) legislative excesses.

Of course, today's legislature often delegates legislative authority TO the courts by writing deliberately vague law, opening up avenues of litigation that are exploited eagerly. Perhaps that is a perversion of the concept of common law (where judges do not rule in the sense of autocrats and tyrants, but rather decide matters of established law), but in our current environment we're already too close to "Rule by Judges" rather than a kritarchy.

Certainly there are other ways at arriving at common law than through trial?
(this is a question that the Volokh conspirators certainly could answer better than I, if they haven't already.)

Share this