Do you agree that a law or a court order that cannot be enforced is not really a law or a court order?

[msc545]

They are just suggestions that don't need to be followed.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes. we have laws that are completely reversed all of the time. they don't even have time to get enforced. they are still laws enforced or not. like backpay on child support. it's sometimes enforced if the person asks. man-made laws are dumb. laws of nature enforce themselves.

[Twalli]

That's why I was surprised Trump wasn't punished for violating the gag order 12 times.

[Ill_made_Knight]

There are outdated / nonsensical laws such as "it is illegal to carry wirecutters in your hip pocket". There are laws where federal and state law disagree. Good example is the legality of marijuana. Rule of thumb, try not to get on the bad side of enforcement. They will find a way if they wish to when grey areas are involved, but if it's on the books it is still a law.

[msc545]

So these are not the kind of laws I'm talking about. I'm talking about sensical reasonable laws that for political reasons get ignored. Many laws that have the goal of eliminating corruption are ignored because the people charge of enforcing the law would rather engage in corruption then enforce it.

[Ill_made_Knight]

Yeah, selective enforcement, but if you're on the wrong team or not in the special class and you're caught involved in said illegal activity you will get the snot hammered out of you. This is not unlike turning a blind eye to a white man dragging a black man behind his truck by a chain for three miles. We have a MULTI tiered justice system, and you and I are not on the very bottom tier... Citizens United and campaign finance are the keys to cracking that particular nut. This is the exact reason why dictatorships always, without fail have massive amounts of corruption.

[msc545]

Good analysis, thank you.

[loveslongnails]

I think we can play semantics with this, but I get your point. In my opinion, they are still laws, and they are still court orders, and it's not that they "cannot" be enforced, but rather, those who have the power (and duty) to enforce them choose not to. So essentially, they are meaningless.

[msc545]

Yes, that's exactly correct. It is what I had in mind when I wrote the question, but perhaps I didn't convey it very well.

[Iron_Man]

if it can’t be enforced, it’s not a part of the law Because you can get off the hook

[msc545]

Maybe.

[NathanDavis]

that's a loophole

[msc545]

Nathan, I don't think it's so much a loophole as just a blatant refusal to recognize the validity of a particular law or even to recognize the validity and simply, without further explanation, refuse to enforce it. The lack of enforcement means the law has no real world effect.

[NathanDavis]

I do agree that many times, it's a blatant refusal to comply... but that's what a loophole is, a legal excuse

take for example... the FDA

the FDA was in charge with enforcing the testing of produce for a few dozens of really bad stuff like that nasty thing causing explosive diarrhea, and the Trump administration, as usual... wants regulations away just so the rich people can get richer...

but Trump can't just eliminate the FDA of the testing and regulations... so what did they do? they created a loophole... if you can't eliminate regulations completely... just reduce the list of tests, and once you reduce the testing in numbers, also FIRE the inspectors and regulators, never hire new ones

so, yes... it's a blatant refusal to enforce rules in order to maximize profit for his buddies... but they do this by creating legal loopholes

he doesn't have the authority enough to end the regulations, but he does have the power to fire regulators...

[Ill_made_Knight]

so in essence a pay to play? The party donating to the candidate may even write legislation to be passed for the specific scheme they plan to employ. In some cases they just lie and look the other way, or so it would seem.

[NathanDavis]

@Ill_made_Knight and that has been legalized as well... but they call it lobbyism

not only that, they also changed the law so these "pay to play" entities and individuals can pay for the lawmakers campaigns WITHOUT limits in spending

using of course... loopholes

[Ill_made_Knight]

yes... citizens united and a few other SCOTUS rulings as the foundation I might say

[NathanDavis]

@Ill_made_Knight speaking of SCOTUS... usually selected by a lobby, which is funded by private citizens, a. k. a... billionaires

because all those picks from Trump were not picked by Trump lol... he was told to assign them

[Ill_made_Knight]

You're on the money... Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society... Leonard Leo, Harlan Crow etc.
At least by the info I've seen.

[msc545]

Good explanation, thanks.

[canamlusciouslad73]

Yes.