This is a serious question. Perhaps some of you philosophers, lawyers, or anyone else smarter than I can answer it.

[Tweedy]

125. Disagree strongly

The law that humans have developed over the centuries is robust, vigorous and quite effective at providing at least a modicum of justice almost all of the time. It is not a fragile edifice.
We have Justices who are tearing that ancient edifice down with both hands to impose their own religious and corporatist agenda.

Where for art thou common carrier doctrine? You have been gone so long here few recall you ever existed. John Roberts killed the “honest services” doctrine and hardly anybody even whimpered. We cannot have any stinking federal common law, because ….. we need to make it simpler to defraud out of state citizens?

Once there was a doctrine against usury. Truly there was. Clean hands must be had still to claim equity, but unclean hands abuse the system to slow everything down to a crawl. The made up, brand new “doctrines” of originalism and “major questions” are silly, rotten and not law at all but rather inventions to impose religion beliefs and a deregulatory fetish on the majority of us.

This all predates Jack Smith dismissing charges against Mr. Trump. Some of it predates today by centuries.

This country spent many years devoting our federal law to the facilitation of slavery. Who can find much justice in that? The Old Testament surely can.

The civil war was not the end because the struggle for justice in this country is almost as mighty as the struggle for representative democracy. Some times have more justice and some have less.

Justice varies by state and by date.

Religion is a terrible substitute for the law unless folks want to burn heretics again. Which religion wins, I wonder? Our ancestors were right to remove that argument from the public square.