The judiciary is not the maker of law. And the level of scrutinity varies. If all laws required “strict scutinity” then the law maker would be quite impotent. In this kind of setting passing laws would be pointless as people would just rely on connections to basic rights on what official acts actually are left standing (a kind of common law scheme). If you have lost representation in the law maker and don’t like its doing, declaring it “corrupt” is not a valid way to circumvent it.
A jury has wide latitude to find the facts of a single case. In order to overturn a jury finding you need to establish that “no reasonable jury” could have took that finding. In similar way the law makers have wide latitude to make law and challenging that means establishing that “no resonable assembly” could pass that. There are limits to what can be passed but the primary way to hash out minor disagremeents is deliberation and voting in the law maker body. It is not proper for judges to deliberate the laws themselfs for the law makers. The check and balance is to catch and prevent what is outside their latitude. If we had too particular standards for juries there would be no real latitude for them to determine guilt but it would be mechanistically restricted by law and “jury of peers” would lose significance and then why have the jury assembled at all. In the same way the law maker needs to have some real latitude in balancing what rights and goods are desired.
The judiciary is not the maker of law. And the level of scrutinity varies. If all laws required “strict scutinity” then the law maker would be quite impotent. In this kind of setting passing laws would be pointless as people would just rely on connections to basic rights on what official acts actually are left standing (a kind of common law scheme). If you have lost representation in the law maker and don’t like its doing, declaring it “corrupt” is not a valid way to circumvent it.
A jury has wide latitude to find the facts of a single case. In order to overturn a jury finding you need to establish that “no reasonable jury” could have took that finding. In similar way the law makers have wide latitude to make law and challenging that means establishing that “no resonable assembly” could pass that. There are limits to what can be passed but the primary way to hash out minor disagremeents is deliberation and voting in the law maker body. It is not proper for judges to deliberate the laws themselfs for the law makers. The check and balance is to catch and prevent what is outside their latitude. If we had too particular standards for juries there would be no real latitude for them to determine guilt but it would be mechanistically restricted by law and “jury of peers” would lose significance and then why have the jury assembled at all. In the same way the law maker needs to have some real latitude in balancing what rights and goods are desired.