site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3073 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 2, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Without generating an incident that goes to court, can someone ask for the court or courts to make a ruling based on current law if there isn't an existing one (or rather, a clear one)? If not, why not?

Basically, I'm trying to understand why we can't address unknowns in the legal system sans a court case. My understanding of copyright law, for example, is that there has never been a ruling about the legality of all the meme clips people post online w/o permission from the media owners. Nothing explicitly about that, anyways. Can someone ask for a legal review of that practice?

Without generating an incident that goes to court, can someone ask for the court or courts to make a ruling based on current law if there isn't an existing one (or rather, a clear one)?

In the U.S.--not if it's the federal government. Some state governments do permit advisory opinions in certain cases.

If not, why not?

Because the federal court system exists to try "cases or controversies." Some state systems are also limited in this way by their state constitutions.

I'm trying to understand why we can't address unknowns in the legal system sans a court case.

One reason is because, on modern separation-of-powers theory, this is not the job of the legal system, but the legislature. The court is there to resolve specific disputes, not to make law generally. (I believe this is a bit different in civil law systems, but I am not an expert in comparative law.)

To your example:

My understanding of copyright law, for example, is that there has never been a ruling about the legality of all the meme clips people post online w/o permission from the media owners. Nothing explicitly about that, anyways. Can someone ask for a legal review of that practice?

The short answer is no, because copyright is a federal issue and per the Constitution federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions.

Thanks, I appreciate the links. But I'm left confused because it doesn't seem like any of the links about advisory opinions explain why they aren't allowed. That is, even if you maintain separation-of-powers, why couldn't you let the courts rule on the meaning/impact of a law, but still allow, say, a legislative body to rewrite the laws with the rewritten one taken precedence?

Consider this law review note from 1924. With specific reference to Constitutional questions, the author writes:

The stuff of these contests are facts, and judgment upon facts. Every tendency to deal with them abstractedly, to formulate them in terms of sterile legal questions, is bound to result in sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. The reports are strewn with wrecks of legislation considered in vacuo and torn out of the context of life which evoked the legislation and alone made it intelligible. These are commonplaces. But they are the heart of the matter of American constitutional law. A failure scrupulously and persistently to observe these commonplaces jeopardizes the traditional American constitutional system more than all the loose talk about "usurpation."

...

The Supreme Court is not a House of Lords with revisory power over legislation, although conservative scholars have suggested that the Supreme Court frankly assume the function implicit in some of its decisions. As part of the ritual of traditional theory, the Supreme Court professes to defer greatly to the legislature.6 Such deference is not merely a gesture of courtesy. It is the formulation of a basic truth in the distribution of governmental power.

...

It must be remembered that advisory opinions are not merely advisory opinions. They are ghosts that slay.

In other words--you're not wrong! It's just that decades and centuries of accumulated legal tradition is stacked against you. Consequently the American legal system, at least, is likely to respond to your question with an invitation--"okay, but since you're the one proposing the change, the burden of persuasion is on you." If you can convince the legislature of your state (assuming you are American) to widely accept advisory opinions, they can do so! At the federal level, however, it would require a constitutional amendment to abolish the "cases and controversies" requirement.

Makes sense, thanks.

Generally, the US Constitution requires you to stick your neck out by having "standing" in a "case or controversy" before the judicial system can do anything. Otherwise, judges would be kings, issuing rulings on anything and everything, with no risk on the part of the people bringing suit.

There are some ways to get around that and obtain declaratory judgments.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats