This reminds me of the historic preservation movements started in the 1960s. Looking at the case law in federal courts, it seems that nowadays federal judges are outright hostile to actions...
This reminds me of the historic preservation movements started in the 1960s. Looking at the case law in federal courts, it seems that nowadays federal judges are outright hostile to actions brought under the National Historic Preservation Act and the judges can easily end a lawsuit they don't like by resorting to complex legal doctrines such as "standing" and "mootness". It goes to show how fragile the legislation is in that it is only as effective as a judge utilizes it. The judicial branch of our political system is not to be underestimated when agendas are being served.
They're not that complex (at least no moreso than any legal doctrine), it's just that the Historical Preservation Act is particularly vulnerable to those arguments. It really isn't very clear who...
National Historic Preservation Act and the judges can easily end a lawsuit they don't like by resorting to complex legal doctrines such as "standing" and "mootness".
They're not that complex (at least no moreso than any legal doctrine), it's just that the Historical Preservation Act is particularly vulnerable to those arguments. It really isn't very clear who is being harmed by a failure to engage in preservation, what the nature of that harm is besides a vague sense of aesthetics, and what remedies the legal system can reasonably offer.
Litigiousness is a very blunt instrument for enforcing policy, so it's appropriate that judges should be leery of issuing rulings that can end up functioning as legislation from the bench.
Much of the backbone of the National Historic Preservation Act is administrative law, so it is the process, not the result that is important. Hasty decisions, or failure to consider the unintended...
Much of the backbone of the National Historic Preservation Act is administrative law, so it is the process, not the result that is important. Hasty decisions, or failure to consider the unintended consequences, is what the act was designed to assure. The impetus behind the act is "Stop, Look, and Listen". When judge will not allow that to happen, then the failure to enforce is, as you state it, legislating from the bench. When a process is incomplete, how can one feel that the conclusion was fairly ascertained?
This reminds me of the historic preservation movements started in the 1960s. Looking at the case law in federal courts, it seems that nowadays federal judges are outright hostile to actions brought under the National Historic Preservation Act and the judges can easily end a lawsuit they don't like by resorting to complex legal doctrines such as "standing" and "mootness". It goes to show how fragile the legislation is in that it is only as effective as a judge utilizes it. The judicial branch of our political system is not to be underestimated when agendas are being served.
They're not that complex (at least no moreso than any legal doctrine), it's just that the Historical Preservation Act is particularly vulnerable to those arguments. It really isn't very clear who is being harmed by a failure to engage in preservation, what the nature of that harm is besides a vague sense of aesthetics, and what remedies the legal system can reasonably offer.
Litigiousness is a very blunt instrument for enforcing policy, so it's appropriate that judges should be leery of issuing rulings that can end up functioning as legislation from the bench.
Much of the backbone of the National Historic Preservation Act is administrative law, so it is the process, not the result that is important. Hasty decisions, or failure to consider the unintended consequences, is what the act was designed to assure. The impetus behind the act is "Stop, Look, and Listen". When judge will not allow that to happen, then the failure to enforce is, as you state it, legislating from the bench. When a process is incomplete, how can one feel that the conclusion was fairly ascertained?