The Supreme Court's recent (state) sentencing guidelines decision has received lots of attention, including in the federal courts, which has to decide on how to apply federal sentencing guidelines. This article and its links suggests just why this whole thing is so important. The jury has an important role in all of this, so this essay supporting attempts to make jury duty more efficient and pleasant is also quite relevant.
---
Another important matter examined by the courts is the wall Israel built to protect itself from attack, a wall that both Palestinians and some local Jewish settlers felt problematic. The Israeli Supreme Court, known for its independence even on terrorist matters, decided the wall did have various problems.
The International Court of Justice did as well, but considered the matter even worse, and was less concerned with Israel's legitimate concerns. As this interesting essay notes, not only is the former more likely to actually mean much for those negatively affected, but the ICJ is rightly felt to be biased against Israel. It should be recalled though that even the Israeli Supreme Court agreed the wall was problematic and international law was relevant to its legality. So, bash the ICJ if you desire, but only if you remember that even the dissenters (U.S. and Netherlands on some points) agreed with some of its findings.
---
This also might be a good time for me to give a modified thumbs down to A Civil Action. It raises some important questions about civil litigation, quite timely, though it had a few too many overly broad characterizations. [I have not read the book, though now I might.] The overall message of the movie appears to be that civil litigation only has a limited ability in determining the truth and to reach a satisfactory result in many cases.
Such is the nature of any system, but it bears noting that any system whose primary ultimate concern is money will likely be of limited value. In this case, based on a true story, it was when the EPA stepped in that "true justice" seems to have occurred. The implication, however, was that it took private action for the government to step in. A government with limited funds and reach, thus the whole concept of "private attorney generals" to protect the public interest.
The necessary balance between the two groups is the ultimate question. I would add that some emphasis was made in the movie about the need for the lawyer to keep neutral because becoming too emotionally involved very well might hurt your client. It was also suggested that a trial is not about justice, which was a bit of hyperbole, even if the net result is not always just. With apologies to Oliver Wendell Holmes, the law and justice need not be mutually exclusive.