|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: Well...not exactly "you lie!" but still noteworthy |
 |
|
Justice Samuel Alito responds to Barack Obama's speech...
MSNBC Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama calling out that SCOTUS decision in his speech was pretty uncalled for. It struck me as a cheap shot made to exploit the "we hate rich people/executives/big business/etc." mentality (and I say this as someone who generally hates people who belong to those categories). While that kind of sticking it to the wealthy rhetoric is nothing new, it's pretty messed up to target SCOTUS with it. The judicial branch might never be entirely free from politics tainting its ongoings, but the idea is to keep it to a minimum. Given the line he reacted to, I don't see Alito as being the inappropriately political one here.
I had a similar problem with the way many law enforcers spoke out against the successful MA decriminalization act. Their job is to enforce the law, not to debate the merit of it, as they're quick to point out when questioned about enforcing controversial laws they do agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama calling out the Supreme Court on this decision was totally called for. This is something people need to hear about, and need to hear about often. You say the idea is to keep the Supreme Court free from political taint, but this Supreme Court is pretty clearly heavily tainted by politics all ready. They made an activist ruling that is fairly clearly rooted in political ideology rather than the Constitution itself.
For all conservatives have bitched about "judicial activisim" this was probably the most activist ruling most people will see for the rest of their lives, and it was a conservative one. People need to be continually reminded of this ruling, especially in an election year. And they need to be reminded which party put into place the judges that passed said ruling.
The Supreme Court being non-political is nice in theory, but it fails the reality test. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As the head of a co-equal branch of the federal government, Obama was entirely within his rights to state his opinion of the Court's decision in a case with potentially profound political consequences: "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests � including foreign corporations � to spend without limit in our elections."
And Alito was within his rights to express his: "Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true".
Along the same lines, it sounded to me like there were a few Representatives/Senators jeering once or twice, although I'm not 100% sure that's what I heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Along the same lines, it sounded to me like there were a few Representatives/Senators jeering once or twice, although I'm not 100% sure that's what I heard. |
McCain was evidently seen sharing a laugh with Lindsey Graham over Obama,"Blaming it all on Bush," as well. Frankly, I don't think continual reference to the policies that got us where we are now is a bad thing, so long as it's accompanied by an attempt at constructive policy to fix what went wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
As the head of a co-equal branch of the federal government, Obama was entirely within his rights to state his opinion of the Court's decision in a case with potentially profound political consequences: "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests � including foreign corporations � to spend without limit in our elections."
And Alito was within his rights to express his: "Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true".
Along the same lines, it sounded to me like there were a few Representatives/Senators jeering once or twice, although I'm not 100% sure that's what I heard. |
Those are my thoughts exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| As the head of a co-equal branch of the federal government, Obama was entirely within his rights... |
I never said it wasn't his right to do so, just that I didn't think it was called for.
| Fox wrote: |
| Obama calling out the Supreme Court on this decision was totally called for. This is something people need to hear about, and need to hear about often. You say the idea is to keep the Supreme Court free from political taint, but this Supreme Court is pretty clearly heavily tainted by politics all ready. They made an activist ruling that is fairly clearly rooted in political ideology rather than the Constitution itself. |
Well first off, case precedents matter too. Rulings don't always have to have a specific Constitutional basis (although the 1st Amendment was invoked), they just aren't supposed to go against the Constitution. It's not as though there was a shortage of past cases which corroborated the majority view in the Citizens United case, as you can see in their opinion:
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf
Secondly, I'd question how political the concurring judges were being given that corporate financing isn't apt to give either side of the two party system an edge over the other. Do you believe the concurring judges ruled the way they did because they wanted to help out Republicans or because they actually believed their decision was the right call? Without necessarily agreeing with them, I still accept the latter interpretation as more likely.
Finally, it's one thing to accuse the concurring judges of being political, but that's not what Obama was criticizing them for. I believe a separate White House statement clarified that he disagreed with "their decision, not their integrity," which is what I have a problem with. If SCOTUS is acting politically, that's pretty messed up and should be exposed. If SCOTUS is acting through the proper interpretation of court precedent and Constitutional law but their decision happens to have potentially negative consequences for the American people, then it's the criticism of such a decision which is unduly political. Obama's criticism of the decision was based on the negative impact it would have rather than on how true it was to American law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Frankly, I don't think continual reference to the policies that got us where we are now is a bad thing, so long as it's accompanied by an attempt at constructive policy to fix what went wrong. |
I entirely agree.
More than one have made the point that Reagan used every opportunity to blame liberals, thereby establishing it in the public mind. Junot Diaz said Obama has failed to establish a comprehensible (and comprehensive) narrative of his views that would counter the Fox/Teabagger narrative. I think that criticism of Obama is on the mark. Far too many think all the problems started last January. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
Secondly, I'd question how political the concurring judges were being given that corporate financing isn't apt to give either side of the two party system an edge over the other.
Do you believe the concurring judges ruled the way they did because they wanted to help out Republicans or because they actually believed there decision was the right call? Without necessarily agreeing with them, I still accept the latter interpretation as more likely. |
I'm sorry, my use of the term partisan was admittedly confusing. I wasn't referring to the Democrats and Republicans, but rather pro-business and pro-citizen politicians. This was a "partisan" ruling meant to empower pro-business (e.g. "sponsored by business", i.e. completely corrupt) political candidates. I should have chosen a better word than partisan, but it's early, and I misspoke.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Finally, it's one thing to accuse the concurring judges of being political, but that's not what Obama was criticizing them for. I believe a separate White House statement clarified that he disagreed with "their decision, not their integrity," which is what I have a problem with. If SCOTUS is acting politically, that's pretty messed up and should be exposed. If SCOTUS is acting through the proper interpretation of court precedent and Constitutional law but their decision happens to have potentially negative consequences for the American people, then it's the criticism of such a decision which is unduly political. Obama's criticism of the decision was based on the negative impact it would have rather than on how true it was to American law. |
The Supreme Court is not infallible. They can rule in error. As such, I don't see why they should be exempt from criticism, even from other branches of the government. Congress and the Office of the President criticize one another, I see no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.
As far as the basis of Obama's criticism, the impact of a law is an excellent standard for judging it. Contrary to what the majority opinion claims, this isn't a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects the expression of ideas, not the expenditure of money. As such, this wasn't a ruling justified by the Constitution, but rather simply legislation from the bench. Like any other legislation, the only adequate means of judging it is by the impact it will have on society, and thus that's also a totally legitimate grounds for criticizing it.
I'm glad Obama talked about it. It needs to be talked about more. Democrats need to learn to scare citizens a little bit; it's unfortunate that it's necessary, but it works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Supreme Court is not infallible. They can rule in error. As such, I don't see why they should be exempt from criticism, even from other branches of the government. Congress and the Office of the President criticize one another, I see no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt. |
In terms of a reason for abstaining from criticism, I'd offer the analogy of a salary job vs. a commission based job. Giving praise or criticism to SCOTUS when you're a political leader is a way, however subtle, to manipulate them into ruling certain ways, which is why nobody likes working in sales. In contrast, government workers (EDIT: To make this more clear, I meant government workers along the lines of post office workers or other bureaucrats, not elected officials) know they're making the same amount of money and their jobs aren't going anywhere no matter what they do, which is why they're free to treat customers the way they're supposed to be treated instead of disregarding the rules in making sure "the customer is always right."
| Fox wrote: |
| As far as the basis of Obama's criticism, the impact of a law is an excellent standard for judging it. |
That sounds like a good idea, but if the interpretation of laws were constantly based on how they impacted the people rather than whether they were consistent with precedent and the foundation of the Constitution, you'd probably end up with lots of terrible despotic consequences, which is where the overused to absurdity threat of socialism comes from. If you start letting the Supreme Court call shots based on common sense or utility to society, you might end up with something like the "common sense" employed by that one poster in that California prison outsourcing thread in which he claimed that crack dealers in Compton should receive harsh punishments because they're probably involved in violent crime (even if they haven't been charged with anything related to violent crime).
| Fox wrote: |
| Contrary to what the majority opinion claims, this isn't a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects the expression of ideas, not the expenditure of money. |
Like I said before though, there were a number of case precedents which interpreted the 1st Amendment as applying in the way they applied it with Citizens United. Case precedents matter just as much as the Constitution does so long as they don't contradict it, and the concurring judges cited a number of precedents which support their decision.
As far as I can tell, the 1st Amendment problem with financial expenditure is that you would have to punish people for expressing their ideas by punishing them for spending beyond a certain amount in expressing their ideas. Thus, it's still ultimately the speech issue that's a concern whereas the ability to spend as much money as desired is a side effect of not being able to punish people for their speech. I would think this would imply that you'd only be off the hook when spending for some sort of public message, but apparently their argument is that the line is too difficult to draw so it's better to err on the side of caution and ensure that the line has no chance whatsoever of cutting off someone's or a group of someones' rights by punishing them even in part for speaking freely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| In terms of a reason for abstaining from criticism, I'd offer the analogy of a salary job vs. a commission based job. Giving praise or criticism to SCOTUS when you're a political leader is a way, however subtle, to manipulate them into ruling certain ways, which is why nobody likes working in sales. |
What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Supreme Court did its job. It defended the Constitution.
Last edited by pkang0202 on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The Supreme Court is not infallible. They can rule in error. As such, I don't see why they should be exempt from criticism, even from other branches of the government. Congress and the Office of the President criticize one another, I see no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt. |
In terms of a reason for abstaining from criticism, I'd offer the analogy of a salary job vs. a commission based job. Giving praise or criticism to SCOTUS when you're a political leader is a way, however subtle, to manipulate them into ruling certain ways, which is why nobody likes working in sales. |
This doesn't make any sense. If the Supreme Court allows Presidential praise or criticism to rule in a fashion they otherwise would not rule in, that's a defect in the Supreme Court, not a defect in the President. The President is under no obligation to remain silent regarding Supreme Court decisions. Saying otherwise is just silly. It's up to the Supreme Court to resist letting such praise or criticism impact their judgment. If they can't do that, they've failed in their duties.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| As far as the basis of Obama's criticism, the impact of a law is an excellent standard for judging it. |
That sounds like a good idea ... |
It doesn't just sound like a good idea, it is a good idea. The only purpose of societal law is to benefit us. If a law doesn't benefit us, it's a bad law. If a law does benefit us, it's a good law. Real world impact is all that matters; adherence to ideology regardless of the real world consequences hurts people.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| ... but if the interpretation of laws were constantly based on how they impacted the people rather than whether they were consistent with precedent and the foundation of the Constitution, you'd probably end up with lots of terrible despotic consequences ... |
If you end up with lots of terrible despotic consequences, then the laws in question are affecting people negatively and should be rejected. Judging a law by how it impacts the population is the best way to avoid terrible consequences, because you can reject laws that have terrible consequences.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Contrary to what the majority opinion claims, this isn't a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects the expression of ideas, not the expenditure of money. |
Like I said before though, there were a number of case precedents which interpreted the 1st Amendment as applying in the way they applied it with Citizens United. |
I'm just going to say it: it's time to abandon the precedent system. Using one bad ruling to justify further bad rulings is absolutely retarded. Sometimes precedents need to be overturned. This is one such case.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| As far as I can tell, the 1st Amendment problem with financial expenditure is that you would have to punish people for expressing their ideas by punishing them for spending beyond a certain amount in expressing their ideas. |
Corporations don't have rights under the First Amendment, first of all. "Corporate personhood" was never truly properly legislated, and more importantly, corporations aren't citizens (and if corporations truly were people, owning them would be illegal). Second, spending money and expressing ideas are independant. Nothing in the First Amendment ensures us any rights regarding money at all.
So we have the First Amendment being used to justify a non-human non-citizen being able to spend money as they see fit. I think it's fairly obvious that the Amendment in question doesn't apply in any way, shape, or form. This isn't a judicial ruling, it's legislation from the bench.
I know you're just trying to keep an open mind, but the facts are clear: the Supreme Court was unjustified in its anti-citizen decision, and chose to grant foreign owned corporations more influence over our politics than the average citizen has. It's disgusting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| In terms of a reason for abstaining from criticism, I'd offer the analogy of a salary job vs. a commission based job. Giving praise or criticism to SCOTUS when you're a political leader is a way, however subtle, to manipulate them into ruling certain ways, which is why nobody likes working in sales. |
What? |
I mixed my metaphor a bit, but the basic idea is that the judicial branch is supposed to be the branch kept out of politics. That's why judges get life appointments or otherwise really long appointments and usually aren't elected by popular vote. This is in contrast to the elected officials who make up the legislative branch, who are supposed to be heavily influenced by the people through their relatively short terms and need to be elected by a popular vote.
The metaphor was the difference between working in sales where you need to actually make customers happy to get paid vs. working as a government bureaucracy clerk where you have no obligation to please customers because of your extreme job security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| The metaphor was the difference between working in sales where you need to actually make customers happy to get paid vs. working as a government bureaucracy clerk where you have no obligation to please customers because of your extreme job security. |
How much more job security does the Supreme Court need, exactly, before it becomes okay for the President to speak his mind about their rulings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
