Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
I answered minx's question as it was framed -- judiciary decides legality of policies after the fact (ie constitutionality) -- that's the intersection between politics/policy, and legislation/law.
No it's not. Constitutionality and legality are two DIFFERENT things. The legality of policies is determined by acts of legislature and administration, it is not decided by the judiciary (there is a notable semi-exception to this but it does not come into play here).

Look, if the courts decided the legality of things then they could make something illegal, right? But they can't do that. Something that was illegal can effectively be made legal (because the law making it illegal could be struck down) but making something illegal requires some sort of positive enactment. And the courts have no such powers. They can only strike down, not enact. Constitutionality and legality are not interchangeable terms.

You questioned using statistical evidence in legal proceedings, not just because of adversarial rules, but because jurors are limited to courtroom evidence....and I agree!
I explicitly spelled it out for you that I questioned it because of the COMBINATION of the two. YOU DON'T READ!

You're also weaseling. Last time you tried to emphasize that adversarial conditions applied to both and argued from there.

I think there are similar limits to *evaluating* policy and legislation, since party politicking propaganda abuses/misuses "statistical evidence". It's almost a goal in campaigns and stump speeches, and leads to statements like "47% don't pay taxes". Sure, the voting public can search and research "independent sources" to confirm or refute....but "statistics" show most don't, but rely on headline news or trust their political party to be truthful. And I'm saying is that affects our election and voting rules, who makes up legislatures and jury pools, and ultimately the judiciary itself.
The voting public does have some limits in evaluating, viewed in aggregate. They're nowhere near as strong as the ones in the jury room or judge's chambers but they're there. The voting public doesn't make policy though, that's why this is a representative democracy. But those limitations are one of the reasons I'm not a fan of California's overreaching initiative and public-democracy system.