I’ve practiced law in Alaska and lived in Anchorage, and the nomination of someone with former President Donald Trump’s legal problems has both positive and negative implications.
There is the argument that someone with such legal problems could not work at the local mall and therefore should not be president. But it equally follows that such a person, since he could be president, should be able to work at the local mall.
This would be a positive development because of our society’s excessive litigiousness. Because of existing laws and interpretations, there are many civil and criminal claims that should not have been brought, and these should not bar opportunities.
Litigiousness is not society’s natural state, and it often results not from the failings of civil or criminal defendants but from overregulation. The number of civil and criminal cases has significantly increased over time, reflected in part by the growth in the prison population in the United States, one of the world’s biggest jailers.
But if the upside of Trump’s nomination is that more people can work at the local mall, then the downside may be that integrating people with legal problems into the mainstream may tend to normalize this litigiousness.
The ultimate victim may be the legal system itself. All branches of government should try to reduce the legal system’s overall role. Otherwise, if there continue to be too many civil and criminal cases, then people will tend to overlook cases that are serious because of the ones that are not, and the system’s relevance and stature are diminished.
— Ahmed M. Puloglu
Guam
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.