Fight political battles in the polls, not in the courts or in the demanding processes Opinion

We noticed it for the first time in environmental law, where they always cause. It’s just expected.

Whatever decides a government agency is always wrong, according to environmental groups. The Enviros always think they can get a better agreement from a judge, and they often do it.

Of course, this encourages them only to sue next time. Most likely, they will win again, if you define victory as stronger regulation and more restrictions on business or government.

Can the agencies that make these decisions make mistakes? You would think so. A legal cause always seems to move the needle a little further.

Most judges would disagree, I’m sure, but courts have incentives to exercise their powers in cases like these. Whatever happens before a judge offers the opportunity to strengthen the power of the courts. Appellate courts are even more tempted to legislate, to expand the judiciary. It’s just human nature.

Then there is the Court of Impeachment, the Senate of the United States. The mere fact of being elected president seems to be more reason for impeachment. Every president from Bill Clinton has faced at least the threat of impeachment. Mr. Clinton and Donald Trump did things that could even justify the accusations against them.

Those who really deserve it, like Dick Nixon and Warren Harding, always run away.

But George W. Bush or Barack Obama? Their very existence seemed to irritate the other part. But seriously, do we have to tie Washington for years to perform impeachment born to fail?

What happened to the idea that the loser shouldn’t just go home and, if it’s a big deal to him or her, sharpen the knives and fill up the bank accounts for next time?

Impeachment is a court of last resort. It shouldn’t be brought up with every excuse. The Senate, you will notice, has never spoiled a president. It would set a bad precedent; The presidential power could be background of about a century.

The same could be said for political issues in court. The part that “loses” the congress or administrative function always wants to sue. But the courts should not make the laws, just interpret and explain them. Often what the losing part wants is a new law, an expanded law, and it is not the affairs of the courts.

As a country, we must commit ourselves to stop being so quarrelsome. It is not really useful, it is not a good way to create law and it is terribly expensive. The only real winners in most cases are lawyers, who make money and improve their status.

Would it hurt us as a society to solve our problems where they should be solved, in elections, in debates and before the court of public opinion? Not only we could make better decisions, but we would save a lot of money.

What if the “wrong” side wins?

editor emeritus, The Oberlin Herald