No, but I am saying that calls to torch the system are premature, and that's essentially where much of this hullaballoo is heading. I don't doubt for a moment that the problem, such as it is, is eminently fixable, but the next question is, are the proposed cures worse than the disease? What is the cost of fixing the problem, and who will bear it?
The law is a very utilitarian affair, in the end. It produces reasonable amounts of good for the most possible people. It does not produce perfect good for all people, and it's a waste of time to try. "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," as our friend Voltaire reminds us.
David Boies said that he thought the courts were exalting form over substance. I thought he raised a very good point.
The law is not itself "justice". The law is how we find justice. It is, really, the best, most practical means of finding justice. If I may, it seems to me that you could sum up Boies by saying that laws, procedures, practices, rules, standards, et cetera, are all well and good, so long as they do not interfere with the desired result. No. The alternative to law is not justice, the alternative to law is anarchy, and anarchy only produces justice accidentally.
I think your analysis of Boies' argument is unfair.
A majority of both houses of Congress passed an extraordinary law to give a woman a second chance at having her constitutional rights vindicated.
There was no pressing reason to kill her immediately. Nobody's rights were being trampled on but hers, and that was supposed to be looked at with fresh eyes.
Why not allow the legal process to work?
When the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no right to seize the land of the Cherokee Indians, President Jackson said, "they've made their ruling, now let them enforce it."
Here we have a similar situation. Congress passes a law, and the judges say, "they've passed their law, but she's in our power, not theirs."
Where is the separation of powers? Where are the checks and balances?