Seeley permanently enjoined the 2023 version of the MEPA limitation, passed via House Bill 971 more than halfway through the session, as well as a portion of Senate Bill 557, saying both were unconstitutional and the latter “removes the only preventative, equitable relief available to the public and MEPA litigants.”
Oh boy a whole bunch of subjective words with no actual objective facts backing the decision! Shocking from a female judge…
I keep being torn with envy for the American system of judicial review, because your judges sometimes actually strike down violations of your rights when our politicians can literally do whatever they please, while being horrified that these judges are robed tyrants with 0.0% accountability rather than the 0.01% accountability that our politicians face.
Muricans, tell me which is the correct interpretation.
As an American I can't say either interpretation is wrong. I'm torn as well.
The multi-branch system makes most sense to me, and I defer to the founders because they had experience with European law being nothing but a sham decoration to legitimize state actions, but there are a lot of lacks of failsafes in our government structure - possibly because they recognized that you can't account for everything in a written document, and they believed if things ever got out of hand The People would simply have another revolt and redo it.
In this particular example, you're supposed to have social pressure, superior judiciary censure, and finally the threat of impeachment from the legislature when judges start going crazy. It's not working and hasn't for a long time. No matter what anyone believes, if there is ever a true "revolution" it must include the courts and case law.
Oh I should probably also point out (you may be aware) that judicial review of the law itself was not even meant to be in the purview of the judiciary. They granted it to themselves in Marbury v. Madison.
Oh boy a whole bunch of subjective words with no actual objective facts backing the decision! Shocking from a female judge…
I keep being torn with envy for the American system of judicial review, because your judges sometimes actually strike down violations of your rights when our politicians can literally do whatever they please, while being horrified that these judges are robed tyrants with 0.0% accountability rather than the 0.01% accountability that our politicians face.
Muricans, tell me which is the correct interpretation.
As an American I can't say either interpretation is wrong. I'm torn as well. The multi-branch system makes most sense to me, and I defer to the founders because they had experience with European law being nothing but a sham decoration to legitimize state actions, but there are a lot of lacks of failsafes in our government structure - possibly because they recognized that you can't account for everything in a written document, and they believed if things ever got out of hand The People would simply have another revolt and redo it.
In this particular example, you're supposed to have social pressure, superior judiciary censure, and finally the threat of impeachment from the legislature when judges start going crazy. It's not working and hasn't for a long time. No matter what anyone believes, if there is ever a true "revolution" it must include the courts and case law.
Oh I should probably also point out (you may be aware) that judicial review of the law itself was not even meant to be in the purview of the judiciary. They granted it to themselves in Marbury v. Madison.
LOL, I read that the "judge" gave a 5-year-old standing because of "her feelings of anguish" due to cwimate change.
Sounds too crazy to be true even by the standards of 2023.
There is no floor