Skip to main content

View Diary: Sh** or Get Off The Pot (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, the Iowa situation... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes

    ...is exactly the bad outcome I think of when someone suggests judges should be privy to the whims of a majority of the voting public. I'm from Iowa originally and I was ashamed of my home state during that farce.

    The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

    by CenPhx on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 12:08:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  well my state also elects its supreme court (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward

      judges but i think the last retention vote protest from the conservatives failed.

    •  There's a difference between being privy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Praxical

      to political tides and being accountable to the Constitution that's supposed to be the sole source of their authority.  

      I would believe a "strict constructionist" is applying a self-consistent legal framework if they ruled the DEA unconstitutional at the same time they attacked, say, welfare programs.  It would be a delusional framework, but it would at least be defensible on its own terms.

      That's not what's happening here.  These judges are making up whatever excuses are necessary to give the Republican Party maximum electoral advantage.  Their excuses are capricious and mutually exclusive, and it's nothing resembling a court of law.

      Judges must first and foremost be bound by their own standards.  There's no room on the Supreme Court for tyrants who refuse to respect the laws they interpret.

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 12:57:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is breathtaking... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timaeus, terrypinder, Praxical

        the courts refuse to be bound by their own standards. My job is reading, interpreting and arguing case law. There is no end to the ways courts get it wrong: they ignore precedent, they twist facts, they twist logic, they are inconsistent, they are malicious. Hundreds and hundreds of cases like this. How do we pick and chose which cases are "right"? Which cases meet whatever standard of right we set up? Who is the decisionmaker of "right"? Because I am willing to bet good money that if, before a court made a ruling, you handed some case law to 100 people and then gave them a set of facts, then showed them the court opinion handed down based on the relevant case law and the facts, they would all have widely divergent ideas of whether the decision was right.

        As sure as we are that Shelby County was wrongly decided, there are people that believe it was correct, just like the reverse situation exists on the healthcare opinion. What standard are you using to say that one case is clearly right and one case is clearly wrong? Because you think so?

        The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

        by CenPhx on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 01:32:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you've over-analyzed this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Praxical

          down a rabbit-hole, which is actually a common thing among people who are professionally involved with things to an extent they can't see the forest for the trees.

          How do we pick and chose which cases are "right"?
          How do you pick and choose which step to take next walking down the street?  You know what your Constitutional rights are, and you would know it if the Supreme Court had attacked them.  We know that Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and the VRA ruling aren't the results of legal reasoning - they're just a pack of Republicans rewriting laws to benefit their Party at the expense of other people's rights.

          Furthermore, the knowledge that someone disagrees with you is not sufficient for you to insist that all things are matters of opinion.  Someone disagrees with climate change.  Someone disagrees with human evolution.  You can find differences of opinion among scientists on the details of these facts, and you can bribe someone with a PhD to say anything you want, but reality is what it is.  Ultimately you have to take responsibility for your share in what happens in this country and say "You've crossed the line from differences of opinion into attacking the fundamental rights of others.  I won't stand for it."

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 01:45:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This part... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour, DeadHead, Praxical

            Ultimately you have to take responsibility for your share in what happens in this country and say "You've crossed the line from differences of opinion into attacking the fundamental rights of others.  I won't stand for it."

            On that, I absolutely agree with you. But I am just as absolutely opposed to the answer to this problem being the impeachment of the judges.

            You believe that the law is reducible to scientific or mathematical proofs. It is not. Its more like, but not exactly like, trying to prove that a piece of art is "wrong" or "right".  

            That is what I think people outside the legal profession tend not to understand - the "law" is not fixed, it is a constantly changing variable.

            I find your cure, impeachment, worse than the disease, bad legal opinions. So we are going to have to disagree about the right way to move forward on the issue of Voting Rights.

            Hopefully you can see that does not mean that I do not care about the issue or do not believe we all have a responsibility to insure that every American has the same right and access to vote.

            The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

            by CenPhx on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 02:06:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can respect your sincere opinion. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CenPhx, Praxical

              Even though I don't see how it's amenable to a sustainable, law-based republic.  You just seem to be saying we should place absolute faith in judges, which is a philosophically and historically strange position given that it's the only branch of the three whose authorities remain overwhelmingly implicit and tradition-based rather than being spelled out in the Constitution.

              We already do what you suggest, and the result has been Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, the VRA ruling, and the ongoing Legislative and Executive consequences of those decisions.  In other words, unlimited faith in the Judiciary has failed, and did so 13 years ago.  Since then, no court has rectified any of the abuses that have occurred.  The train has jumped the tracks and either we put it back on or it'll just go on its merry way to outcomes whose shapes we can already guess at by the pattern of rulings we're seeing.

              I'd personally rather not wait for them to rule that corporate personhood means that corporations get to vote before we doing something about this lawless court.  And you know they will - that's not an exaggeration.  And judging by the reactions I'm seeing, it also wouldn't be an exaggeration to say they could be reasonably confident we would do nothing if they issued such a ruling.

              Impeachment would open up the possibility of conservative abuses of the judicial impeachment authority, but you know that precedent has never and will never stand in the way of these criminals.  If they ever seriously want to impeach our judges, they'll do it whether or not we've done it before them, and they'll get away with it whether or not they have any case.  That's not a real argument for not defending ourselves against people who are actively attacking us from a position of lifetime authority.

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 02:24:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site