Aristotle on the wisdom of Colorado River Compact litigation:
Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges…. [L]aws are made after long consideration, whereas decisions in the courts are given at short notice, which makes it hard for those who try the case to satisfy the claims of justice and expediency.
Aristotle, Rhetoric
Aristotle is right. But when laws are not actually “well-drawn” – whether through a lack of competence, intentional omission, a failure of imagination, or other reasons – judges must address issues within the scope of those laws that subsequently arise and that cannot (either as a practical matter or as a matter of law) be resolved definitively or appropriately without recourse to the courts. Seeking to address a fundamental conflict in the interpretation of consequential law through the litigation process is not inherently unwise in such circumstances. One could argue that it is actually unwise not to do so, when it has become apparent that the issues involved cannot be resolved definitively or appropriately by the parties involved.
At a certain point, endless negotiation becomes mere wheel-spinning in deep mud. How much longer should the states persist before deciding that they’re utterly stuck in a cavernous pit and need outside assistance getting extricated? There’s been a lot of wheel-spinning going on for quite a long time already. Bumps and bruises, and even broken bones, might result from the extrication process; but is it preferable to remain immobilized intractably in a quagmire?