Why Decent Sentients Reject Bad Law
True Justice vs. The Technicality Trap: Why Decent Sentients Reject Bad Law
The **Covenant of Core Rights** provides a universal moral floor—a framework that protects people from injustice in an honest, natural, and common-sense way. This aligns with a simple truth understood by decent sentients across all polities: **If you see a woman stealing baby food, no you did not.**
When judicial systems violate this basic moral truth by strictly enforcing the **'letter of the law'** to produce an outrageous result, they cease to be legitimate agents of the people and become instruments of **domination**. The Covenant demands that we look beyond legal technicalities to the **substantive outcome** of justice.
*(For a full list of rights and duties referenced here, see the Covenant overview: The Covenant of Core Rights Overview.)*
I. The Procedural Injustice: Ledbetter v. Goodyear
The Supreme Court decision in **Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.** is a primary example of procedural technicality being used to shield systemic injustice.
Covenant Violation: Right to Accountability (§1.8)
The Covenant guarantees the **Right to Accountability**, meaning a rights violation must have a genuine, accessible path to redress. The judgment in *Ledbetter* violated this by:
- **Nullifying the Right:** The court’s overly narrow reading rendered the anti-discrimination law useless. It shielded an **ongoing structural wrong** from any remedy.
- **Enabling Domination:** The decision used a technicality (statute of limitations) to enforce the unaccountable power of the corporation, a direct violation of the **Non-Domination Principle (§2.3)**.
II. The Moral Inversion: The Louisa Sewell Conviction
The conviction of **Louisa Sewell** for shoplifting because she had no money, had not eaten in days and was hungry represents a far deeper moral failure: the court used state power to punish the victim of the state's own failure to uphold the moral floor.
Covenant Violation: Duty of Care & Proportionality
This judgment breaches the core contract of a covenanting polity in multiple ways:
- **Right to Equitable Access (§1.4) and Duty of Care (§2.2):** Sewell’s act was one of necessity, driven by the state’s failure to maintain the **Universal Moral Floor** (food). The court, by punishing her, rejected its **Duty of Care**, essentially declaring starvation to be an individual problem, not a system failure.
- **Proportional Responsibility (§2.4):** This principle requires obligations to scale with power. The state (maximum capacity) punishes the individual (minimum capacity) for an outcome caused by the state's own neglect. This is a fundamental **inversion of justice**.
III. The Covenant Remedy: Substantive Justice Review
To prevent **Ledbetter** and **Sewell** scenarios, the Covenant requires a judicial check: the **Principle of Substantive Justice Review**.
- **The Mechanism:** The highest interpretive body of the Covenant conducts a review of final judgments where **procedural technicality** (Ledbetter) or **dire necessity** (Sewell) defeated a claim for a Core Right.
- **The Veto:** If the judgment is found to violate the **Non-Domination Principle** or render the **Right to Accountability** meaningless, a **Covenant Veto** is issued. The judgment is voided.
- **The Mandate:** The sub-covenanting polity is required to re-open the case and provide an **equitable interpretation** that grants true justice—which, in Sewell’s case, means immediate provision of the means of flourishing and system repair, not punishment.
The Covenant ensures that the judiciary of any polity, while respecting its laws, can never use those laws to establish or protect systems of arbitrary domination.
Comments