|
ulmont posted:After having seen a state legislator say “I don’t care if this bill is unconstitutional, I’m voting for it anyway”, I highly prefer a slightly less public-answerable second opinion on that front. The reason we get horrible laws is because our legislative institutions are bad, and judicial review is a "cure" for that that is often even worse than the disease. Like right now, yes, I am glad that there is some kind of judicial check on the Tennessee state legislature, yeah. But the actual solution is making our legislative institutions more representative and effective, not giving unelected law-lords effective vetos over popular and necessary legislation. The protection against bad state laws on things like reproductive rights should be a federal Congress that accurately represents the majority of Americans in favor of abortion access, not un-elected elites getting to veto things. Green Crayons posted:You think that all legal cases should be decided by the trial court, or administrative agency, without appellate review? Judicial review as in courts getting to effectively nullify legislation passed by democratically elected legislators. Obviously you would still need civil/criminal courts for the everyday work of society and commerce. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Sep 23, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
This is the part of the thread where everyone who hasn't thought about things past middle school civics goes "whu buh but you need a court to review laws and overturn whatever it doesn't like or pull new laws completely out of their rear end or society is doomed", totally ignorant of the fact that plenty of countries don't have judicial review and do just fine or at least not any worse than us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
Worcester is not some pro-Native panacea. It simply upheld the power of the federal government to regulate interactions with the Indian Nations, as against the states. Take a look at Marshall’s explanation of how exactly it came to be that there was this thing called the U.S. on the lands the Natives used to occupy: quote:This policy has obtained from the earliest white settlements in this country, down to the present time. Some cessions of territory may have been made by the Indians, in compliance with the terms on which peace was offered by the whites; but the soil, thus taken, was taken by the laws of conquest, and always as an indemnity for the expenses of the war, commenced by the Indians. Worcester at 304. Oh, “some cessions of territory may have been made by the Indians,” you don’t say. And this is from the case you’re citing as *upholding* indigenous rights. He won’t even just articulate an absolute right of conquest that forecloses further discussion, he insists on saying it was all their fault in the first place and pretending we were acting in self defense when we ran them off their land. It is very difficult to read that as anything other than a justification of the genocide of the Indians. What of this power of conquest? quote:But power, war, conquest, give rights, which, after possession, are conceded by the world; and which can never be controverted by those on whom they descend. Which is to say, once you take it, it’s yours, forever. As concerns the Oklahoma cases, it isn’t the most anti-Native position imaginable. They could have ruled against the tribe and held the reservation was constructively disestablished. They didn’t. And yet, they still endorsed the entire system of relations on which reservations are founded, which is that they have that land and those rights only by virtue of the fact that the federal government didn’t take it from them. McGirt makes it clear Congress could disestablish the reservation tomorrow if it wanted. That’s an endorsement, or at least blase acceptance, of the genocide that led to Cherokees living in Oklahoma in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
It says right there that the natives started 100% of the wars, would the supreme court lie. If the natives had minded their own business and not crossed the Atlantic to raid Plymouth, England, the English wouldn't have had to demand war reparations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
No one is claiming it was a panacea, only that the courts have been on average better on the issue than other branches or levels of the Federal government; which is to say that the assertion as per your earlier shitposting that the court has been uniquely bad about the rights of native Americans is hyperbolic and wrong, your argument seems to rest on that the courts didn't declare aggressive wars unconstitutional? That wasn't even remotely their jurisdiction it is something they quite literally have no power or authority over which is all that says, it doesn't make value judgments on the rightness or wrongness of war, that isn't what all but a very specific subset of courts are for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Oh word you mean what they do is uphold the status quo without reaching the underlying equities? Sounds like a great institution to rely on if you don’t like the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Oh word you mean what they do is uphold the status quo without reaching the underlying equities? They very specifically didn't uphold the "status quo" as you understand it; their purpose is not necessarily to resolve underlying (in?)equities; I think that obviously requires a political solution? I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's the USSC that was supposed to be the one to do so? And no one is suggesting relying on them? You seem like you just want to talk poo poo and not actually discuss this based in any kind of rational basis or facts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Worcester is not some pro-Native panacea. It simply upheld the power of the federal government to regulate interactions with the Indian Nations, as against the states. In general everyone was fine with the right of conquest until Napoleon got too good at it. It wasn't completely considered a bad thing until WWII. So "we won it fair and square" was a legal argument at the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
We need the supreme court to uphold human rights, but we don't need to give them the power to actually do that if the government wants to conquer people and drive them away, makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
You’re the one arguing the Supreme Court is a good institution, not me. I’m pretty clearly arguing the Supreme Court is no great thing to defend precisely because it doesn’t do those things, outside aberrations like the Warren court. If the things that actually matter will “obviously” be solved by something other than the Supreme Court, where’s the great virtue in the institution? What’s so worth defending about it if it “obviously” can’t be relied on to do good and necessary things. And thus, of consequence to the politics of today, what’s the downside in daring Republicans to trash it if they don’t control it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:You’re the one arguing the Supreme Court is a good institution, not me. I’m pretty clearly arguing the Supreme Court is no great thing to defend precisely because it doesn’t do those things, outside aberrations like the Warren court. No offense, but you sound like a god drat idiot. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:You’re the one arguing the Supreme Court is a good institution, not me. Where did anyone actually say this? I refer you to my previous dissent here in Salazar v. Kazak: Raenir Salazar posted:You've moved the goalposts quite a long way from: In post no. 508298214. Kazak_Hstan posted:I’m pretty clearly arguing the Supreme Court is no great thing to defend precisely because it doesn’t do those things, outside aberrations like the Warren court. It's not supposed to do those things except in the situations in which it has jurisdiction in... This is what courts do in general? I think you have a larger more fundamental issue with the idea of jurisprudence and law in general? Contrapoints has a good video just put out recently where I think she talks about this that you can check out as to the nature as to "what is the law" vs "what is justice". quote:If the things that actually matter will “obviously” be solved by something other than the Supreme Court, where’s the great virtue in the institution? What’s so worth defending about it if it “obviously” can’t be relied on to do good and necessary things. And thus, of consequence to the politics of today, what’s the downside in daring Republicans to trash it if they don’t control it? The courts are for arbitrating disputes, is the short of it. You're ascribing something to it it's not supposed to have? Some things can have value for their specific role without it doing also other things that would be nice. We haven't solved human morality, not by a long short, there is no perfect system that can make everyone happy and resolve every conflict and institute perfect justice and its weird to grind that particular axe like this here. You made a silly claim and should just take the L and move on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:The Supreme Court is a reactionary institution that has thwarted progress far more often than it has advanced it. Raenir Salazar posted:Uh this is not true and a massive oversimplification. You? Right there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:In general everyone was fine with the right of conquest until Napoleon got too good at it. It wasn't completely considered a bad thing until WWII. So "we won it fair and square" was a legal argument at the time. People generally defend the legal fig leaves letting them do whatever they want until someone uses it to do whatever they want to them in turn, yes
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:You? Right there? Weird how I don't see anywhere in the part you quoted where I claim it's a "good institution"?  Like that's not even true if you try to claim that is what my post was "arguing" or what you "interpreted" it to mean! Me saying that you are wrong about your assertion that "The Supreme Court is a reactionary institution that has thwarted progress far more often than it has advanced it" does not necessarily mean that it's "good"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Weird how I don't see anywhere in the part you quoted where I claim it's a "good institution"? Making a point of listing off a bunch of good things the Court has done throughout its history and then arguing that you never said anything that could be interpreted as saying the Court is good is weird as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
pointing out good things an institution has done does not make you a stan for that institution. it makes you, yknow, fact-based. this whole 'sure i was ignorant and wrong but at least I'm not DEFENDING something' poo poo is just embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:The reason we get horrible laws is because our legislative institutions are bad, and judicial review is a "cure" for that that is often even worse than the disease. Contrast this with a system like ranked choice voting in 10-member districts, where 90% of voters can point to someone they personally helped win. Meanwhile, the Congress and legislatures we do get are elected via gerrymandered districts and primary elections, which endorse a deep cynicism where politicians don't even have to pretend to represent anyone but the core voters inside their party. Naked power grabs and refusing to compromise are the inevitable result. It's this sort of division that makes Americans surprisingly trusting of the Supreme Court as a check on this nonsense. But that too, may soon fade, for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
Proportional voting instead of first past the post would also mean that most people would see someone they voted getting a seat. But neither that or ranked voting is going to happen because America is designed to not let urban masses of poors have any say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
Interesting point I learned recently, many state legislatures in the US had a form of proportional representation in having multi winner districts (kind of like list voting systems). These were done away with in favour of single winner districts as the former were largely being used to disenfranchise African American voters by splitting them across a few big districts in the era before modern American gerrymandering made it conceivable to have districts stretch across half a state and be one Street wide in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
Just make voting districts/regions/etc be the actual geographic areas and if you want to change it you end up having to change county/city/etc lines as well which would be less easy to slip through.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
The dirty secret is that any form of winner(s) take all regional representation means that a significant portion of the population will not be ideologically represented, and all of them can be weaponized against minority groups (or any dispersed minority ideology).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
You don’t have to choose between the pros of district-representation (someone to complain to about hyper local issues like the lack of bike lanes, bad sidewalks, weird smell near the meat packing plant, etc) and equitable representation of everyone in a polity. Mixed member proportional representation satisfies both of these, this is a solved problem. I strongly suspect that implementing it would probably not bring about as leftist a government as most goons think, but it would still be a massive improvement.Celexi posted:Just make voting districts/regions/etc be the actual geographic areas and if you want to change it you end up having to change county/city/etc lines as well which would be less easy to slip through. County/city boundaries are explicit markers of racial\class segregation all the time. In many cases it’s literally the reason for their existence, especially city limits. I don’t think there’s One Weird Trick for having fair districts, and you can’t really tell just by looking at them, without knowing a ton about the area. Natural and totally coherent communities of interest can look like crazy scrawls, and egregious gerrymanders can look compact and sensible. That’s why you need some form of party list proportional representation to balance out the downsides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 09:48
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:I don’t think there’s One Weird Trick for having fair districts, and you can’t really tell just by looking at them, without knowing a ton about the area. Natural and totally coherent communities of interest can look like crazy scrawls, and egregious gerrymanders can look compact and sensible. That’s why you need some form of party list proportional representation to balance out the downsides. There isn’t. You can see some of the issues in these maps (note how many arguably fair options there are with very different maps) and related writings here. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Uh this is not true and a massive oversimplification. It was the Supreme Court that tried to tell Jackson to gently caress off from committing genocide (he ignored them, but they still made the correct ruling as I understand it), they legalized gay marriage nationwide and have even advanced trans rights despite being a majority conservative court; then of course Brown v. Board, Griswald, and a host of other good rulings. I feel like the (early) FDR court and the modern court are the blips in question. None of that refutes their point - the terrible decisions vastly outnumber the ones you listed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:In general everyone was fine with the right of conquest until Napoleon got too good at it. It wasn't completely considered a bad thing until WWII. So "we won it fair and square" was a legal argument at the time. The Doctrine of Discovery was even cited in 2005 by RBG, the colonizers never left. I'm all for a thesis of "SCOTUS, even in its best cases, is going to uphold an unjust status-quo", because even the very arguments here are trying to thread the needle between acknowledging that the SCOTUS sucks for being a source of freedom and saying nothing should be done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
Yes but if we're going down that path - every form of government or organ of government is going to typically favour the status quo and is going to be a target for those with power to defend their interests. Looking at something like the SCotUS and saying, 'historically this has been a tool of oppression more than it has stood up for minority rights' (especially if you're going back historically to cite near unquestioned abuses such as upholding the legality of imperial conquest). Let's get rid of it and replace it with something else is an invitation to replace it with something which is going to be as open to capture and abuse unless you've got a reasonably clear idea of what you would prefer to see replace it and are prepared to argue for that. It certainly does constitute a clear reason for people to fight for representation and empowerment within that organ or government. Something like court expansion is a way of shaping the SCotUS to better represent the views of the American people. Honestly having an openly political judicial system strikes me as loving insane but that's what America has because one of the major parties that holds influence and control over the executive and legislative branches wants it that way. I should also add that pretty much every country has a supreme court analogue (and for EU members there is in fact a European supra-national entity with a similar role). America is unique among democratic nations in having an explicitly political one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Hey just checking in, the supreme court cases that say people born in certain US territories aren't citizens because their inherently inferior genes render them too savage to be allowed into the body politic are still good law right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
Yep And also you aren't a REAL MURICAN if your parents didn't have a foot on ARE BLESSED SOIL for at least 5 years as a teenager
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Okay, who's up for some theorycrafting on a situation where the Dems mishandle judicial expansion like they did healthcare? https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1308795349138432000?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who would chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats win back the majority, is against nixing the legislative filibuster, which would be a necessary first step to adding seats to the court." If only RBG had lived instead of her. Feinstein is such a massive pile of human garbage. e: In the event the Dems take the Senate I fully expect people like her to kneecap any meaningful reform for the dumbest reasons possible. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who would chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats win back the majority, is against nixing the legislative filibuster, which would be a necessary first step to adding seats to the court." Dianne's like 87 and frail af in a job that theoretically is stressful. It is cruel to say it, but she may not live much longer to stop reform. a bit OT but has the US always been this much of a gerontocracy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Dianne's like 87 and frail af in a job that theoretically is stressful. It is cruel to say it, but she may not live much longer to stop reform. How do you reach 87 and still think there is nobody better to replace you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Dianne's like 87 and frail af in a job that theoretically is stressful. It is cruel to say it, but she may not live much longer to stop reform. Yes. People who leave power voluntarily have good odds of being replaced by those who don't. Health care has improved dramatically in last 60 years or so though, so we've had the same people in power for a long time. Boomer-ocracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:How do you reach 87 and still think there is nobody better to replace you. Does anything in this video indicate to you that she is not fit for duty? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQAs3gGgFJ0
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who would chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats win back the majority, is against nixing the legislative filibuster, which would be a necessary first step to adding seats to the court." I am currently taking Feinstein at her word and assuming this old poo poo Senator will be a vote against fixing the Senate. We already thought we'd need 51 or 52, but I am encouraged that the other usual suspects like Leahy and Manchin have suddenly gone radio silent on the issue rather than put out their usual naive statements about how the filibuster is useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:This is extremely ageist. Obviously, she won't be as physically strong as someone younger (in fact she even makes a joke about it in the video I linked below), but she is perfectly capable of performing her job. I mean I'd argue most of her political career indicates she's 'not fit' to represent anyone, but yes it's fair to question if someone almost 90 years old can handle a high stress job
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I mean I'd argue most of her political career indicates she's 'not fit' to represent anyone, but yes it's fair to question if someone almost 90 years old can handle a high stress job I find this question particularly relevant, as RBG herself faced a lot of criticism from ageists who felt she should have retired during Obama's tenure as to secure a liberal spot. Obviously, she ignored them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
At that rate, let's just offer to reinstall Sandra Day O'Connor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Hey remember when she loving scolded a bunch of kids who approached her about fears of dying in boiling oceans? Feinstein loving sucks and none of this is a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 20:01
|
|
