[lsuphqay] Not winner take all

If a law passes by a very narrow margin in the legislature, the other two branches of government should regard it suspiciously.  It is not "winner take all".  A juror might strongly consider jury nullification because there were all those legislators of educated and sound mind who thought it a bad enough law to vote against.

When a vote is split down party lines, they might also regard it suspiciously.  Perhaps the law was passed solely because of party politics with no regard of whether the law is good.

This continues checks and balances, and encourages "good" law of large and bilateral support.

Similarly, if a law is upheld in a Supreme Court decision by a narrow majority, then lower courts should regard it suspiciously as precedent.  Although justices are not officially affiliated with political parties, they in fact are (usually the party of the President who appointed).  If the decision splits along party lines, once again regard it suspiciously.

It helps to later reaffirm a law (or court decision) by a greater majority, possibly by regularly bringing it up for repeal.