There is a difference between substantive injustice and formal injustice. A majority in excess of 75% could agree that Catholics should be deprived of voting rights and civil liberties, and it would be unjust. Suppose the court, against the will of the people, overturned the legislation, as being unconstitutional. Then a result against the will of a large majority of citizens would be just. In that case, it would also be formally just, because the Bill of Rights and the courts are allowed to overturn decisions of the legislature or plebeiscites on certain grounds.
In ordinary usage, formal justice is whatever the competent authority says it is: the legislature is empowered to decide certain question, the courts are empowered to decide some, and so is the president or governor. As long as they lawfully exercise their authority, the result is formally just, because someone has to be able to make the decision. If the electorate doesn't like it, it can vote the legislature out of office, or, in some states, demand a plebeiscite or referendum. In that case, it is exercising its lawful power to hold the legislature to account, or instruct it in certain instances. (It did not in the case of the speed limit).
In most instances, as long as the decision is reasonable, we consider the formally just result to be the substantially just result, given legitimate difference of opinion. However, there are many issues where some party might "live to fight another day"......... |
