|
|
Quote
RockRam
In the Court system, justice begins by following the law and the rules of jurisprudence; not by some arbitrary, case by case, decision on what is "fair and just", or what the rules will be about how to run a trial, despite what the law (or in this case the CBA) says.
I can fully understand why the Union doesn't like the way it works right now. Fine. Then in the next CBA, bargain to change it. That's the proper way to go about it. But it is ethically wrong to try to get an activist Judge to impose his will on the CBA.
This is what the Union is trying to do; and is what these Judges that keep offering stays are doing. And they know it.
Judges don't make law, they define it. Things are not always black and white and nuances can fall outside a given law which a judge typically tries to bring back in line. But we have multiple layers of judges to correct or confirm lower court rulings through an appeals process. In this instance, none of that applies. They are reviewing a contract written by lawyers from both sides so does the wording match the result? If it's ambiguous it needs to be litigated.
Our legal system is slow and cumbersome but still the best in the world. We just don't always agree with the results.
