[OneWingedShark]

No, NOT like a Sharia court. I just think we need to find some way to make sure judicial opinions consider the WHOLE of our law,

You are wrong, not on principle but on implementation/reasoning. You se there's this thing called precedent *spit*, which ostensibly is to function just as you suggest. The problem is that the cases used for precedent are chosen to fit the conclusion the judge wants.

What we need is Constitutionalism instead of case-law; that is, start with the Constitution and reason [completely] from there w/o appealing to prior decisions.

[GodAndCountryFirst]

We need a Constitutional amendment stating that this is a Christian nation and that nothing in the Constitution is intended to contradict Biblical Law.

[supercat]

You se there's this thing called precedent *spit*, which ostensibly is to function just as you suggest.

I think the one of the most fundamental problems is that the Court fails to make recognize the distinction between two related questions:

1. Whether some particular action is legitimate
2. Whether any harm someone suffers as a result of some particular action justifies a remedy

The court, when pressed, occasionally recognizes that not every illegitimate action which harms someone justifies a remedy. It seems very loath to do so, but occasionally in cases where someone is clearly harmed by some patently-illegitimate action, and yet no reasonable remedy is be possible, it will recognize that not every illegitimate action has a remedy. Unfortunately, the court fails to recognize that this also implies that a finding that an action does not justify a remedy does not imply that the action was legitimate.

I would posit that a recognition of the above, along with a recognition that an oath to uphold the Constitution requires that one must a good faith effort to act legitimately, would do a lot to check the incremental decay of constitutional governance. As it is, courts often feel unwilling to decide that an action was illegitimate in cases where such a finding would seem to compel an impracticable remedy; a failure of the court to condemn the action is thus taken as an endorsement of its legitimacy. What should happen in such cases would be for courts to expressly denounce the actions in question, and acknowledge that denying the relief would be unjust, but apologetically recognize that the relief would be impossible to grant without causing a greater injustice.