Now, in this case, the Constitutional Court may overrule the Supreme Court's decisions, but a majority of them *also* like the Prime Minister more than they care about the law, so they decide not to.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
In the face of this, it's possible that the General Council of the Judiciary might decide that this obviously wrong decision warrants investigation and removal for misconduct, but a majority of them *also* like the Prime Minister more than they care about the law, and so they decide to do nothing.
The key difference is that, in the US, the roles of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are combined and carried out by the same body, while the role of the General Council of the Judiciary is carried out by the US Senate.
No, the key difference is that 1. Civil Law systems have a narrower possibility of interpretation, because there is a hard law framework. 2. And in this example, there are more bodies involved, so reaching (several) corrupt agreements would be harder. 3. There could be even further steps at ...
Again, many things Trump has violated are not caselaw - which you're incorrectly referring to as "soft law" - but actual legislatively and constitutionally drafted "hard" laws. The point is that the judiciary AND the judiciary's oversight body like Trump's actions more than they care about the law.
I must have explained myself very wrongly if you think a jurist can be confused between the concepts of "soft" law and of jurisprudence/case law. Soft law has always been instruments, no laws, that do not have legally binding force.
...then I don't understand why you keep insisting that these are problems that are solved with civil law systems; the fundamental issue in the US is that a judiciary *AND* its oversight body have been corrupted to ignore lawbreaking by a specific executive, which can happen in *any* legal system.
There are fewer steps of oversight, and the oversight body itself is compromised by its composition, but that's the actual problem, not the fact that it's a common-law system rather than a civil-law system.
There is also the added problem that, because everyone has *mostly* behaved themselves for a very, very, very long time, Congress is gun-shy about using its oversight powers over the Supreme Court to punish them for failing to enforce the law - though the high vote margin required is also a problem.
But the broad strokes of "people in positions of power like the president and his illegal actions more than they care about the law" is key; the US system does have checks that could keep this from happening, but they are fewer because it was assumed that each branch would jealously guard its power.
Well, I think it's a very optinistic understanding of human nature to think that people/authorities are independent of the powers who appointed them.
But I agree on the "West Wing" being a lovely, and very interesting, fantasy.
Comments
But I agree on the "West Wing" being a lovely, and very interesting, fantasy.