[jedberg]

That's what the judicial branch is for.

They have to pass the crappy rules first so that someone who was harmed can sue them.

Congress can stop them now, and the judicial can stop them after the fact. Congress is corrupt, but thus far the judicial is not.

[jessaustin]

The corruption of the judicial branch is more obvious to its victims than it is to the average citizen, but it does quite a bit more direct harm than Congress does. For example, the courts that fund their municipalities on the backs of the poor, all the shady arrangements with the incarceration industry, the seemingly deliberate destruction of families and children perpetrated by the divorce courts, the horrific excess of the Drug War, etc.

Still, the courts might help in this case.

[null000]

Pretty sure the most of what you're talking about is the executive branch. They're in charge of enforcing the rules - e.g. deciding who to prosecute for drug crimes and which prisons to put them in to serve their term.

Likewise, the executive branch is the one that decides to go after offenders based on profitability over public good (although you could also lay that on the legislative branch for allowing the executive to fund itself using fines in the first place).

[jessaustin]

Nothing I mentioned happens without the eager cooperation of judges and other officers of the court. The ongoing disaster of the divorce or "family" courts has nothing at all to do with the executive. Anyway we weren't comparing the judicial with the executive but rather with the legislative.