I'm not so sure it is the legal system overall that is the problem--it is the roadblocks that partisan appointments have set up and the way that those magnify the weaknesses that are simply inherent in the way it works, particularly for criminal. People think the system is going to deliver Truth, but it fact it delivers the opinion of 12…
I'm not so sure it is the legal system overall that is the problem--it is the roadblocks that partisan appointments have set up and the way that those magnify the weaknesses that are simply inherent in the way it works, particularly for criminal. People think the system is going to deliver Truth, but it fact it delivers the opinion of 12 people constrained by what a judge--with anything from ordinary human failings to a full agenda --can tell those 12. It also, needless to say, depends on the particular skill of those lawyers presenting their case. Witness the problems of being represented by an overworked public defender. At least in the trump criminal prosecutions the prosecution shows many signs of exceptional competence.
Ask any 12 random people in some parts of the country and you may well get the "truth" that flaunting snowballs in Congress means climate change isn't happening.
What the system has difficulty coping with is the propaganda about what the issues are. The folks who still think that hearsay or speculation or outright lies is actual evidence are legion: you can see it in any Stop the Stealer. And you can see it in all the free promotion by all ranges of media of trump's persecution complex. Bravo to the judge who called BS on that. And bravo to the jury in the E. Jean Carroll case who also called BS on it. But the number of people who STILL "moderately" will only abandon trump if he is actually convicted is terrifying, quite apart from those who will never abandon him. That circles back to the idea that only conviction can be "proof" of actions disqualifying someone from wielding power. The evidence is out there and anyone with a brain not totally atrophied should be able to see it. We can see the evidence out there and draw our own conclusions, so long as we recognize what evidence IS. We don't need twelve people to tell us. But people uneducated in how the system works plus a relentless propaganda machine have made that not count.
The problem I have with "it should move faster" is that the actual system is filled with safeguards and of of finding and marshalling actual, not anecdotal evidence. That is NEEDED for the system to work. I have no idea why the trump cases got off to a "slow start" because neither I nor you nor Kurtz -know what was actually started before Smith was involved nor what the motives of Garland were in how he proceeded. Those motives are sheer speculation, just as a witness who assumed boxes going into a poll counting center must be fake votes is sheer speculation. I do know that the chances of actually convicting trump are WAY better now than they would have been if DOJ had gone off half-assed earlier without a solid case it can rely on.
As the trump cases show, the system is at odds with our election cycles. Those require faster resolution than the law is set up to deliver--the controls on resolution that benefit you and me should we find ourselves sued or indicted. Yes, those obstacles I mentioned, folks like Judge Cannon, are slowing it down more than it should be. I wish the "gag order" rules were a whole lot more strictly enforced. The system isn't really set up to deal with those because they actually aren't needed a whole lot--except for Dons, Mafia and otherwise, not a lot of defendants have the inclination nor the clout to ignore them or even NEED them. Again, the law is at odds with the the prevailing influence of the propaganda mongers. And part of that propaganda is a relentless undermining of trust in the system that overall has been the best available and that we've lived with overall successfully since the common law jury system was born.
Sure it has glitches--the various Innocence Projects show that, particularly for "Others" caught in the system. Those are fixable glitches if we work hard enough at it. I'm not sure the effects of propaganda and the way all the media falls for it in pursuit of the clickable story and the effects of political appointments to the judiciary are fixable because they turn out to be baked into the Constitution itself.
But before anyone simply writes off the legal system they should be able to come up with a more acceptable alternative. Orban's? Netanyahu's? George III's?
I'm not so sure it is the legal system overall that is the problem--it is the roadblocks that partisan appointments have set up and the way that those magnify the weaknesses that are simply inherent in the way it works, particularly for criminal. People think the system is going to deliver Truth, but it fact it delivers the opinion of 12 people constrained by what a judge--with anything from ordinary human failings to a full agenda --can tell those 12. It also, needless to say, depends on the particular skill of those lawyers presenting their case. Witness the problems of being represented by an overworked public defender. At least in the trump criminal prosecutions the prosecution shows many signs of exceptional competence.
Ask any 12 random people in some parts of the country and you may well get the "truth" that flaunting snowballs in Congress means climate change isn't happening.
What the system has difficulty coping with is the propaganda about what the issues are. The folks who still think that hearsay or speculation or outright lies is actual evidence are legion: you can see it in any Stop the Stealer. And you can see it in all the free promotion by all ranges of media of trump's persecution complex. Bravo to the judge who called BS on that. And bravo to the jury in the E. Jean Carroll case who also called BS on it. But the number of people who STILL "moderately" will only abandon trump if he is actually convicted is terrifying, quite apart from those who will never abandon him. That circles back to the idea that only conviction can be "proof" of actions disqualifying someone from wielding power. The evidence is out there and anyone with a brain not totally atrophied should be able to see it. We can see the evidence out there and draw our own conclusions, so long as we recognize what evidence IS. We don't need twelve people to tell us. But people uneducated in how the system works plus a relentless propaganda machine have made that not count.
The problem I have with "it should move faster" is that the actual system is filled with safeguards and of of finding and marshalling actual, not anecdotal evidence. That is NEEDED for the system to work. I have no idea why the trump cases got off to a "slow start" because neither I nor you nor Kurtz -know what was actually started before Smith was involved nor what the motives of Garland were in how he proceeded. Those motives are sheer speculation, just as a witness who assumed boxes going into a poll counting center must be fake votes is sheer speculation. I do know that the chances of actually convicting trump are WAY better now than they would have been if DOJ had gone off half-assed earlier without a solid case it can rely on.
As the trump cases show, the system is at odds with our election cycles. Those require faster resolution than the law is set up to deliver--the controls on resolution that benefit you and me should we find ourselves sued or indicted. Yes, those obstacles I mentioned, folks like Judge Cannon, are slowing it down more than it should be. I wish the "gag order" rules were a whole lot more strictly enforced. The system isn't really set up to deal with those because they actually aren't needed a whole lot--except for Dons, Mafia and otherwise, not a lot of defendants have the inclination nor the clout to ignore them or even NEED them. Again, the law is at odds with the the prevailing influence of the propaganda mongers. And part of that propaganda is a relentless undermining of trust in the system that overall has been the best available and that we've lived with overall successfully since the common law jury system was born.
Sure it has glitches--the various Innocence Projects show that, particularly for "Others" caught in the system. Those are fixable glitches if we work hard enough at it. I'm not sure the effects of propaganda and the way all the media falls for it in pursuit of the clickable story and the effects of political appointments to the judiciary are fixable because they turn out to be baked into the Constitution itself.
But before anyone simply writes off the legal system they should be able to come up with a more acceptable alternative. Orban's? Netanyahu's? George III's?