You literally say it's "deceptive to separate them". The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them.
Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.
There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases. Perhaps that is your preferred order of the world.
But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence. Suggesting otherwise is to lean into autocracy, whatever your motives.
> The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them
This is wildly incorrect. The point is not separation - that is obviously stupid and pointless. The point is maintaining checks and balances on the power of the government, and one of the (many) mechanisms is through separation.
> Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.
Again, incorrect, because the principle is limiting power, not separation of powers test for its own sake. Not passing laws that can't be correctly enforced is not a violation of that goal or the strategy of separation of powers.
> There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases.
Nowhere did I say that or does my argument imply or necessitate that. Being unable to enforce a law due to lack of resources is categorically different than political pressure. You're intentionally misinterpreting my words
> But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence.
This is your own projection of what a "modern", "principled" government should look like - which, as stated before, is obviously stupid and pointless. Separation is not a virtue - it's a means to an end. You may want to consider reading the US Constitution to see this in action.
The fact that you replied with a sarcastic comment lacking any content and then went to my profile and signed my email up for a bunch of spam emails is proof that you're unable to defend your argument. Not that proof was needed.
I can't speak to the latter, but the former was not sarcastic and there's nothing to defend. Muddying the independence of arms of government is page one of the autocrat's handbook which you seem smart enough to know. No making laws all by yourself legislators, you will first check with the Ministry of Enforcement! It's an entirely valid form of governance, as Big Men of History will attest, and you're entitled to your opinion on the matter.
You literally say it's "deceptive to separate them". The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them.
Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.
There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases. Perhaps that is your preferred order of the world.
But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence. Suggesting otherwise is to lean into autocracy, whatever your motives.