What if the law is unjust or what if its particular application in a particular instance is unjust?
That would raise questions. However, I don't think anyone could raise a good argument that this law is unjust.
I don't think the particular law is unjust as a general rule, but instead I think it's unjust in the particular application to the special circumstances of actions and promises by Donald Trump. (or Bizarro Universe Biden). I had responded to thebeave's sentence with two exceptions because I thought his sentence was too much like a platitude, devoid of nuance. The latter exception (a law that is unjust in a particular instance) seems to have legal support in some ways, such as for example by prosecutorial discretion, executive discretion, clemency, or a pardon. The former exception (an unjust law) has analytical support when we do historical analysis of authoritarian regimes or similar. We don't have to Godwin the thread either to discuss this as we can discuss white supremacy in our own country. Consider non-violent civil rights activism prior to implementation of the Civil Rights Act. We might say trespassing generally is a just law. But then applying it to people based on race during this time not so much. Throw out the convictions. If a judge cannot handle it, let the jury throw it out. Are we not alleged to be a government of, for, and by the people? If justice fails at all levels of government, then wouldn't it be up to a jury as a last resort to uphold the justice?
I'll try to give a fictitious example next of considering a law generally good but in a particular instance, perhaps not so much. Stealing or thievery. It's generally wrong and illegal to steal money from someone. Right? But let's say you own a convenience store and often work the register as cashier. Let's also suppose you have in your employ, 9 other people.
A customer with little hands comes in one day. His name is Tonald Drump. He says he has the best system for winning bets on the game which seems legal. He says if you all pool your money together, he'll submit your money through the betting system and give you, your returns which likely will win. So you and the employees all cough up $10 each, pooled into $100. You give that to Tonald Drump. Then, he allegedly goes off and places a bet. You don't see him for a month and you ask him about the returns, how much you made or lost. He quickly exits the store saying he has to shampoo his cat. The same exact thing then happens every first of the month for 5 months in row...always saying he has to shampoo his cat.
Now in the meantime, you look into the bets placed and find out that you all had broken even and should have received the money a while ago. Now comes the 6th month. Tonald comes in to the store. He mistakenly thinks you are someone completely different. Let's say he thinks you are Nancy Pelosi for some reason. Next, he tries to buy a small bag of Cheetos. He goes through his pockets and finds a money clip of thousand dollar bills. He gives you a $1000 bill to pay for his Cheetos. He's already eating them, by the way, getting orange everywhere on himself. Next, you take $100 from the change you could have given him but give him the rest of the change. You take the $100 and split it among yourself and the employees because he owed you collectively $100.
He starts screaming that you just stole $100 from him. So he runs outside and calls the police. You admit that you took the money from him and they arrest you for stealing.
In court the judge says, "You can be an adequate cashier and commit bad acts. You should have taken Tonald to small claims court, not dished out justice yourself like a vigilante. What you did in targeting a customer was an attack on our free market economy.” Then, she throws the book at you, giving you 90 days in jail and a small fine.
I don't think application of the law would be fair in this instance.
