|
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 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
Again, I'm not saying Obama was doing something illegal by criticizing the Supreme Court, just that it's kind of bad form to do so. I imagine Alito et al will neither be strongly encouraged to rule in favor of issues Obama supports nor strongly encouraged to rule against issues Obama supports simply because he criticized him. Still, it goes against what I explained above in response to bacasper.
Like you pointed out in an earlier response, legislation is what should be criticized when you're a political leader like the President. If you're going to make a criticism of the Supreme Court, it ought to be something along the lines of either "they were wrong because precedent X or Constitution Y reasons" or "they were ruling politically rather than staying true to the law." Claiming the ruling was bad because it will have a negative impact on politics, the people, etc. is like saying a call a referee made was bad because it will make the game less competitive or entertaining. Social improvement is supposed to be a legislation thing and impartial interpretation a judicial thing.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
My entire argument hinges on how this is true of making laws, not of interpreting them. Also, there's a difference between adherence to ideology and adherence to precedent and Constitutional law. There is the issue of the intention behind the laws in making interpretations, but nonetheless the strict interpretation of the law is often contrasted with the assessment of the law's practical value. The former is the business of the judicial branch while the latter is the business of the legislative branch.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
You're kind of arguing against the concept of laws themselves by suggesting they should be accepted and rejected not only during the legislative process but during their judicial interpretation as well based on how they seem to help or hurt the people. The point of laws is that they're supposed to have some staying power and consistency so we don't get screwed over by double standards or a tyranny of the majority. With your system, you could get rid of the judicial branch altogether and just have Congress debate and then vote on existing laws an additional time whenever someone appeals a case related to them. Instead of laws, they'd be more like transiently enforced political notions. This is why we can't have full on religion threads anymore. Issues of morality are fuzzy and generally debated by repeating your personal fuzzy beliefs over and over again. Issues of law on the other hand are closer to matters of fact. You can point to a precedent or relevant passage of the Constitution and get someone who doesn't agree with you to at least acknowledge that the precedent or passage somewhat agrees with you. There's an impartiality and detachment inherent in the interpretation of laws which is absent in debates of perceived utility.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
SCOTUS can overturn precedents. If one justice had made the opposite ruling, they would've overturned the corporate personhood precedent, probably on the basis of the 1st Amendment making reference to actual people rather than corporations. That would be different from overturning the precedent because it's bad for the political process or some other practical reason.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
Aside from your last line, that's the appropriate judicial argument to make against it, as opposed to the political argument that it will hurt the political process by hurting the little guy and giving more power to the rich.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
And now we return to the political argument. As an aside, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to give the average citizen any more influence over our politics than I would want to give to blindly profit driven corporations. I'm glad America isn't a democracy. I think the term "democrat" is actually way more appropriate for the Democrats of the antebellum era given that they demonstrated pretty effectively how the overvaluing of majority rule can lead to horrible yet popular notions being enforced as law.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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? |
The point is that it's kind of bad form to start trying to move in the direction of politicizing the Supreme Court. It would be called for to accuse SCOTUS of being political instead of doing its job if that's what one believes, but Obama (or a statement released by his press team anyway) explicitly stated that it was an issue of judgment rather than integrity and that his problem was with the consequences this interpretation would have. This goes back to my argument outlined above. Social consequences should be a legislative thing. The judicial branch should stick to refereeing the laws based on objective, non-whimsical standards. Obama criticizing SCOTUS in the way he did isn't terrible; it's just kind of against the spirit of what the judicial branch is supposed to be about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So you're saying what Obama did was "bad form". Okay. I disagree, I think it was excellent form. Form is one of those things that really has little objectivity to it, so what more is there to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| So you're saying what Obama did was "bad form". Okay. I disagree, I think it was excellent form. Form is one of those things that really has little objectivity to it, so what more is there to say? |
Well, there's a difference between stating an opinion and demonstrating how an opinion resonates with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Just as you don't have to agree with a point to see how that point is shared by some other source, you can disapprove of the practical consequences of allowing SCOTUS its distance from politics while still acknowledging that this is how Article Three of the Constitution and the historical evolution of the judicial branch seem to suggest things should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| So you're saying what Obama did was "bad form". Okay. I disagree, I think it was excellent form. Form is one of those things that really has little objectivity to it, so what more is there to say? |
Well, there's a difference between stating an opinion and demonstrating how an opinion resonates with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Just as you don't have to agree with a point to see how that point is shared by some other source, you can disapprove of the practical consequences of allowing SCOTUS its distance from politics while still acknowledging that this is how Article Three of the Constitution and the historical evolution of the judicial branch seem to suggest things should be. |
I not only disagree with the practical implications of the ruling in question, but I assert that nothing in the Constitution supports the ruling in question. It's wrong from every possible angle. They only thing it might have in favor of it is judicial precedent, but I assert that practical result trumps judicial precedent, and with the Constitution not coming in on the side of the ruling, it's clearly a ruling that was made in error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| So you're saying what Obama did was "bad form". Okay. I disagree, I think it was excellent form. Form is one of those things that really has little objectivity to it, so what more is there to say? |
Well, there's a difference between stating an opinion and demonstrating how an opinion resonates with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Just as you don't have to agree with a point to see how that point is shared by some other source, you can disapprove of the practical consequences of allowing SCOTUS its distance from politics while still acknowledging that this is how Article Three of the Constitution and the historical evolution of the judicial branch seem to suggest things should be. |
I not only disagree with the practical implications of the ruling in question, but I assert that nothing in the Constitution supports the ruling in question. It's wrong from every possible angle. They only thing it might have in favor of it is judicial precedent, but I assert that practical result trumps judicial precedent, and with the Constitution not coming in on the side of the ruling, it's clearly a ruling that was made in error. |
I agree (and have already agreed, I believe) that there is a good case to make for that decision being the wrong one constitutionally. My problem was with the politicizing of the decision by criticizing it for reasons not really related to constitutional law or legal precedent. Unlike you, as far as I can tell Obama didn't criticize the decision as unconstitutional. Come to think of it though, that might be even worse of a claim to make coming from a law professor already in charge of the executive branch (EDIT: alluding to separation of powers, in case that wasn't clear). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't look like the White House is backing down any time soon:
On the morning after the back-and-forth between the president and the justice, the White House issued a news release citing the minority dissent, by Justice John Paul Stevens, to support the president�s assertion about the impact of the majority opinion.
�If taken seriously, our colleagues� assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government�s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions,� Justice Stevens wrote. �Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by �Tokyo Rose� during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans ��
Pressing the sensitive question of foreign influence, Justice Stevens later added that the majority opinion �all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at �preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation�s political process.� � The dissent continued: �Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign finance law for many years.�
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/white-house-v-the-supreme-court/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It doesn't look like the White House is backing down any time soon... |
Thanks for the link.
Interestingly, Stevens made an argument against political speech itself instead of trying to separate speech from spending towards speech as Fox and many others here have. It sounds as though it was generally agreed upon that spending towards speech is covered by protections applying to speech itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're failing to take something into account in your critique of these speeches, Street Magic. These are made for public consumption. They're trying to articulate why the public should be worried about this ruling. That doesn't mean that, while pursuing change from within the government itself, these are the arguments the Obama Administration would be using.
If Obama Administration had been making its case to the Supreme Court, I think their argument would more closely resemble my own than what was presented in the State of the Union Address and its follow up. Because these were crafted to inform the public of negative consequences, though, they focused on consequence rather than legal process.
Most individuals in the general population couldn't be realistically expected to either follow or to take interest in the sort of discussions we've been having here on this topic. I discussed it briefly with my co-worker today, and his level of ignorance and inability to grasp the basics of it surprised me, but is no doubt very reflective of the populace in general. They don't care about legal precedents, the specifics of the First Amendment, why corporate personhood is ridiculous, and so forth. They care about how they're going to be impacted, and that's pretty much it.
The CE forum might be a pit of vipers sometimes, but there's a lot of fairly well educated, intelligent people here on both sides of the political spectrum. It can't be taken as a valid cross-section of society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The CE forum might be a pit of vipers sometimes, but there's a lot of fairly well educated, intelligent people here on both sides of the political spectrum. It can't be taken as a valid cross-section of society. |
Yeah, real life people hate nuances. I think it goes back to the whole ambition thing that I lack and how debating details is a great way to avoid actually doing stuff in opposition to the whole ambition thing that the average functional citizen has and how glossing over details is a great way to get to actually do stuff. Most of this forum is united by our common escapist tendencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think something else needs to be brought up here, if we're going to talk about precedent. There were legal precedents which would have opposed the Supreme Court's ruling, but Judge Roberts chose to rebutt them instead of following them:
| Quote: |
| Second, the validity of Austin�s rationale�itself adopted over two �spirited dissents,� Payne, 501 U. S., at 829�has proved to be the consistent subject of dispute among Mem-bers of this Court ever since. See, e.g., WRTL, 551 U. S., at 483 (SCALIA, J., joined by KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); |
In short, he rejects precedent simply because it wasn't unanimous. This isn't a group of men who has respect for legal precedent, and this decision went against previous legal precedent. And the best part? The dissents came from Scalia and Thomas, two other men ruling on the case. Do you really think precedent was objectively considered? Of course not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I think something else needs to be brought up here, if we're going to talk about precedent. There were legal precedents which would have opposed the Supreme Court's ruling, but Judge Roberts chose to rebutt them instead of following them:
| Quote: |
| Second, the validity of Austin�s rationale�itself adopted over two �spirited dissents,� Payne, 501 U. S., at 829�has proved to be the consistent subject of dispute among Mem-bers of this Court ever since. See, e.g., WRTL, 551 U. S., at 483 (SCALIA, J., joined by KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); |
In short, he rejects precedent simply because it wasn't unanimous. This isn't a group of men who has respect for legal precedent, and this decision went against previous legal precedent. And the best part? The dissents came from Scalia and Thomas, two other men ruling on the case. Do you really think precedent was objectively considered? Of course not. |
What about the lines directly after what you quoted?:
| Quote: |
| The simple fact that one of our decisions remains controversial is, of course, insufficient to justify overruling it. But it does undermine the precedent�s ability to contribute to the stable and orderly development of the law. In such cir-cumstances, it is entirely appropriate for the Court�which in this case is squarely asked to reconsider Austin�s validity for the first time�to address the matter with a greater willingness to consider new approaches capable of restoring our doctrine to sounder footing. |
He seems to acknowledge your objection directly and goes on to provide more tangible evidence for his opinion in the following paragraphs. The reference to past dissent was only to suggest that the search for a good reason to overturn the precedent in favor of a less shaky constitutional justification might be called for, not to serve as a reason for overturning it in itself.
I do love when justices cite themselves though. I always wanted to do that in a paper.
On the plus side, that's a great line for a justice to cite the next time corporate personhood is challenged. Roberts acknowledged that a close vote is a good reason not to accept a precedent at face value and there's no closer split possible than the 5-4 that went down in the Citizens United case. He basically gave this case an expiration date by explicitly placing value in nearing unanimity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| He seems to acknowledge your objection directly and goes on to provide more tangible evidence for his opinion in the following paragraphs. |
That's correct. My point is simply that legal precedent was overturned in this case, so talking about legal precedent as being in favor of the decision is highly questionable. Simply put, the conservative majority on the court wanted to rule on this case, wanted to rule exactly the way they did, and shrugged off any legal precedent that would obstruct them in that goal.
| Street Magic wrote: |
Roberts acknowledged that a close vote is a good reason not to accept a precedent at face value and there's no closer split possible than the 5-4 that went down in the Citizens United case. He basically gave this case an expiration date by explicitly placing value in
nearing unanimity. |
Yep. Total short sighted legal recklessness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| He seems to acknowledge your objection directly and goes on to provide more tangible evidence for his opinion in the following paragraphs. |
That's correct. My point is simply that legal precedent was overturned in this case, so talking about legal precedent as being in favor of the decision is highly questionable. Simply put, the conservative majority on the court wanted to rule on this case, wanted to rule exactly the way they did, and shrugged off any legal precedent that would obstruct them in that goal. |
No matter how they ruled, it's pretty likely some precedents were going to be overturned while other precedents were going to be upheld. If you look at the dissenting opinions (I remember Ginsberg's in particular), they seem to focus on how corporate personhood isn't constitutional. Had they one more justice on their side, they would have overturned every case that's reaffirmed the notion of corporate personhood thus far. Precedents are important, but they're ironically often important insofar as they can be used to overturn other precedents.
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Roberts acknowledged that a close vote is a good reason not to accept a precedent at face value and there's no closer split possible than the 5-4 that went down in the Citizens United case. He basically gave this case an expiration date by explicitly placing value in nearing unanimity. |
Yep. Total short sighted legal recklessness. |
I don't know about reckless. I doubt that he was unaware of how controversial this case would be. I imagine he intended to keep the corporate personhood issue a questionable one so they can more easily overturn the Citizens United decision if it gets blatantly abused in the future while allowing an erring on the side of caution loose interpretation of the First Amendment in the mean time. |
|
| 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
