I've been wanting to ask about something that troubles me for some time, and this is as good a place as any. I'd really like your explanation:
A state legislature or other lawmaking body (my question is general, so level of government is immaterial) creates legislation, presumably after a suitable period of debate and discussion as to constitutionality, efficacy, justice, cost, and so forth.
The Governor signs the bill into law, whereupon it becomes part of the legal structure of the state.
At some point the law is challenged in court, and arguments for and against it are heard. I understand that the arguments are heard by a single appeals judge, who then analyzes them and writes an opinion that sustains or stays all or part of the law. In the absence of further challenges, the decision becomes precedent which can be referenced in other cases.
Two recent examples of this sequence are the Arizona immigration law and just today proposition 8 in California.
I understand that if the parties are sufficiently motivated they can appeal to higher courts until finally the outcome is cemented at the Supreme Court level.
My question is: Given that the law was established at great expense, interminable debate, voted into being by the legislature or the people, and signed into law by the Governor, why is the power to sustain or stay at a given level vested in a single individual?
It seems to me that this is an extraordinary amount of power for one person to have, especially considering the difficult and arduous process that brought the law into being in the first place.
Granted that the judge's decision can be overturned, I do not understand why it comes down to one person, or I suppose in some cases, a few persons.
Shouldn't this power be vested in a diverse body with the same level of open debate that brought it into being?
I'm confused, and would appreciate your answer.
Thank you. |
