Mooseontheloose posted:I honestly think the best court reform would be all supreme court cases are decided by a random selection of 11 (or whatever number you want) upper court appellate judges and restrict the justices to some ceremonial role of overseeing the questions. The courts become a lot harder to game, you get a more impartial and diverse view of law, and the supreme court losses it's stranglehold. That would create an incredible instability as the way the constitution is interpreted changes by the luck of the draw. A better solution would be to amend the constitution in a way that is less prone to interpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not remotely expert on how Canadian constitutional law functions, but some googling and reading indicates their courts are able to review and annul legislation for violation of the constitution. Otherwise the constitution wouldn't act as supreme law. Maybe it's changed but the preview for this JSTOR article from 2002 says the legislature in Canada has an option that Congress doesn't: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3505113 Though I do think what's tripped me up is how our Supreme Court has been captured by an extremist faction in a decades-long project and is doing its own policy making which is probably not happening in other countries. Even if we had weak judicial review it's not like Congress would pass abortion protections. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:being right, being funny, being "properly considered": none of these things save anyone. only power can do that. only being in a position to decide what happens will help you decide what happens. You're just arguing against the concept of laws in general, then.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Maybe it's changed but the preview for this JSTOR article from 2002 says the legislature in Canada has an option that Congress doesn't: It should be noted that this is actually pretty bad and the "notwithstanding clause" was inserted to get everyone on board with the constitution as written. The clause has rarely been used, and it's generally accepted here that it shouldn't be used and it loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Maybe it's changed but the preview for this JSTOR article from 2002 says the legislature in Canada has an option that Congress doesn't: Interesting, this is referred to in other sources as the "notwithstanding clause", and it applies to specific parts of the constitution only. It re-enacts the law for a five-year period to give the legislature a chance to withdraw it, giving them a sort of parliamentary court override supremacy. It's also apparently very controversial, and a relatively recent invention. Folks in canpol may be able to provide more context. e:f;b apparently!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Don't need to bring it back it's always been legal in one capacity and this Court certainly isn't gonna take kindly to defendants' rights. Yes but it’s always been hidden under layers of wage exploitation or poor protections for prisoners. I’m talking about full-on owning people as an individual. Oh God, I can hear the Ben Shapiro segment now… “Um, ACTUALLY it’s not chattel slavery it’s INDENTURED SERVITUDE. The left is being so disingenuous about this.”  Mooseontheloose posted:I honestly think the best court reform would be all supreme court cases are decided by a random selection of 11 (or whatever number you want) upper court appellate judges and restrict the justices to some ceremonial role of overseeing the questions. The courts become a lot harder to game, you get a more impartial and diverse view of law, and the supreme court losses it's stranglehold. The problem with any “one weird trick” to fix the SCOTUS is that the issues go way deeper than the SCOTUS itself. The current moment is the result of a concerted effort by a psychotic ruling class with enough money and power to buy the results they desire. You don’t fix that by packing the courts or something. People need to stop thinking about politics as a game of rules lawyering and more as an ongoing negotiation with various interest groups and institutions. The rules only matter so much and will be ignored whenever possible. The real goal should be to get enough power to strongarm the other side into making meaningful concessions. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Yes but it’s always been hidden under layers of wage exploitation or poor protections for prisoners. I’m talking about full-on owning people as an individual. I know never say never but the amendment is pretty clear on slavery. They can carry out their ideological project without going that far. And you're right the Supreme Court is only one part of a much larger problem. The reason the reactionary takeover of the Court works so well is because of how lovely the rest of our system is.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Criminalizing abortions makes it easy to incarcerate women and especially minority women for miscarriages and that directly strengthens the for-profit prison pipeline which itself is the modern slavery analogue.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I know never say never but the amendment is pretty clear on slavery. They can carry out their ideological project without going that far. You know the US still had actual slavery until around WW2 right? https://www.newsweek.com/book-american-slavery-continued-until-1941-93231 posted:
The courts upheld it too.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I know never say never but the amendment is pretty clear on slavery. They can carry out their ideological project without going that far. The words in the constitution only matter if there’s some mechanism in place to enforce it. And the mechanism in this case is… *checks notes* the SCOTUS. poo poo. I can very easily see conservatives getting around this by calling slavery something else and tweaking the core concept a bit. That’s kind of the problem here. If the SCOTUS decides that slavery isn’t really slavery then there’s no real legal recourse short of a constitutional amendment. And even that can be worked around.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:You know the US still had actual slavery until around WW2 right? The Courts upheld it because the 13th was written in an awful way. We still have actual slavery today in prisons. This Court is going to exacerbate any issues with the criminal "justice" system unless we get lucky with Gorsuch and Thomas's weirdness when it comes to this stuff and the stars align perfectly. edit: christ this poo poo is so dumb Why Justice Alito’s Draft Opinion in Dobbs Doesn’t Threaten Gay Marriage Why are the issues different? Because Justice Alito says they’re different. quote:It is a perilous business predicting the decisions of the Supreme Court. That’s why one should never scoff at thoughtful opposing arguments, but the principal reason I don’t believe that Dobbs will impact gay marriage (or contraceptives, much less interracial marriage or consensual adult sexual intimacy) is the language of Dobbs itself. Justice Alito says his opinion “does not undermine” the cases that form the foundation of Obergefell “in any way.” https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/627535eb95033600218457a5/roe-v-wade-obergefell-gay-marriage/ He made the same argument in Dobbs as he did in his dissent in Obergefell. Evil or stupid is always a tough game because French is both. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 21:23 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
As I understand it though, one way the US is unlike a lot of the rest of the world is the extent to which case law produces binding precedents beyond the scope of the current case. Like in a typical civil law country like most of Europe, it's still the job of a court to decide if a law is ambiguous on something, like if it might conflict with other higher laws. But the decision isn't something other courts in the future have to follow and it's expected that the legislature fix it. Which isn't always better, but it means you couldn't have really had a situation like now where abortion is legal nationwide due to case law but lots of states have non-functional zombie laws on the books banning it. I'm not a lawyer though, just had to research a little to distinguish civil law vs common law systems a while back and that's what I gathered from it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Comparing court systems is difficult because the United States doesn't have a professional judiciary the way that other countries often do. Basically anyone can be a judge, and Supreme Court judges are selected by their political parties for their political reliability rather than their experience or competency. French judges go to a competitive school and study for years, and their supreme court equivalent has dozens of members. German judges are selected via an elaborate and multifaceted system, must have an extensive and specific work history (and education), and their twelve supreme court justice equivalents have limited terms in terms of age and duration.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Interesting, this is referred to in other sources as the "notwithstanding clause", and it applies to specific parts of the constitution only. It re-enacts the law for a five-year period to give the legislature a chance to withdraw it, giving them a sort of parliamentary court override supremacy. It's also apparently very controversial, and a relatively recent invention. Folks in canpol may be able to provide more context. Yes, the notwithstanding clause was a hack put in Canada's 1982 constitution to somehow have a constitution that is the supreme law of the land while still preserving parliamentary supremacy. The clause allows provinces and the federal government to overrule the constitution on certain things, theoretically indefinitely as long as the people of that province continue to elect governments that want to continue using the notwithstanding clause. In practice it's not used very often (though for a while in the 80s the government of Quebec put the notwithstanding clause in every piece of legislation they passed because they didn't like the new constitution and didn't want to be bound by it). These days if it does get used, or if its use is threatened, it tends to be controversial because Canadians have become accustomed to the same kind of rights-first discourse as Americans and don't particularly like the idea of the government being able to unilaterally decide their rights are suspended. As with most things in politics these days though, it's highly partisan: if your team is doing the rights suspending then it's fine and if the other team is doing it then it's tyranny, but because Canada isn't a one-party system it tends to mean 60% of the country sees it as tyranny instead of just 50%.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:As I understand it though, one way the US is unlike a lot of the rest of the world is the extent to which case law produces binding precedents beyond the scope of the current case. Like in a typical civil law country like most of Europe, it's still the job of a court to decide if a law is ambiguous on something, like if it might conflict with other higher laws. But the decision isn't something other courts in the future have to follow There’s a hierarchy between decisions in the US system between which decisions each court is bound to follow, roughly: (For US constitutional rights or interpretations of federal law): 1. US Supreme Court 2. En banc (full court) opinion from the Court of Appeals in your area 3. Panel (3 judge) opinion from the Court of Appeals in your area Each binding only the people down in the hierarchy, so the en banc Court of Appeals can reverse a prior panel decision, and other Courts of Appeals can ignore each other, and district court opinions don’t bind anyone other than the parties, etc. (For state constitutional rights or interpretations of federal law): 1. State highest court (usually but not always the Supreme Court of State) 2. State intermediate court (usually Court of Appeals) (possibly divided by area of the state) en banc 3. Panel of State intermediate court The above is, of course, an oversimplication in various regards. …now, all that having been said, while it is true that each trial court is free to reach a decision which disagrees with another trial court, each court of appeals is free to disagree with another, etc… …it is also true that “treat like cases alike” is a fundamental tenet of judicial fairness and equality, so that prior cases should not be ignored except for good reason. ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:18 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You're just arguing against the concept of laws in general, then. Laws are by their nature political; there is no such thing as an apolitical law. Even something as fundamentally basic as "murder is illegal" is political in nature and has political implications. What constitutes murder, and are there degrees? If so how are those degrees defined? Who gets to prosecute a murder? How are murders punished? Who gets to decide all of the above and why do they get to do so? For laws to mean anything they need to have somebody to enforce them and some type of standard to enforce them to, and those inherently give power to some groups over others. Even if you found a cave filled with nine eminently qualified US constitutional scholars who had somehow remained 100% isolated from modern politics and held no political opinions of their own, then they would still be bound to making decisions via interpreting a biased document written by a bunch of rich white slave owners who were first and foremost concerned about protecting their own wealth and liberties from a tyrannical government. There's a reason why "originalist" tends to mean "conservative rear end in a top hat." tl;dr SCOTUS is political by its very nature and always has been because its job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws when the constitution is a political document and laws are inherently political in nature. Sydin fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:The Dems should ignore the Supreme Court rulings and state as much. There is precedence for it and there is nothing in the constitution granting explicit powers to the Supreme Court to enact their rulings. What would ignoring the rulings look like? For example, if Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization went ahead as per the leak, what should Democrats currently in power do to enforce Roe v. Wade? Aside from passing legislation, since that wouldn't require ignoring the ruling. In addition, what specific precedents are you referring to? And what do you mean by the power to enact rulings? Koos Group fucked around with this message at 22:41 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What would ignoring the rulings look like? For example, if Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization went ahead as per the leak, what should Democrats currently in power do to enforce Roe v. Wade? Aside from passing legislation, since that wouldn't require ignoring the ruling. In order - Sending national guards to protect clinics - Andrew Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia - the Supreme Court has no standing army or armed forces to enact violence and a national level to ensure their rulings are followed. It requires the cooperation of the executive branch. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What would ignoring the rulings look like? For example, if Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization went ahead as per the leak, what should Democrats currently in power do to enforce Roe v. Wade? Aside from passing legislation, since that wouldn't require ignoring the ruling. As long as they hold the executive Biden or whatever Dem is president could simply direct federal enforcement agencies not to act on the SCOTUS ruling and the DOJ to not prosecute any federal cases regarding "illegal" abortions. Granted that doesn't really do much to stop red states from prosecuting people on their own and using state/local law enforcement to shutter clinics and harass providers. If you're talking extreme measures Biden could federalize the national guards of any red states attempting to exercise laws that run afoul of Roe and use them to guard abortion providers and escort people in/out of clinics Little Rock Nine style. I fully admit though that I do not think the political will exists for that at all.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Sydin posted:As long as they hold the executive Biden or whatever Dem is president could simply direct federal enforcement agencies not to act on the SCOTUS ruling and the DOJ to not prosecute any federal cases regarding "illegal" abortions. Even sending in the NG to protect clinics wouldn't matter since the locals would just arrest/murder the doctors and patients at their homes instead.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
Pretty sure the only real effective action would be biden saying "i will pardon anyone who murders the justices who voted for this" but that wont happen (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even sending in the NG to protect clinics wouldn't matter since the locals would just arrest/murder the doctors and patients at their homes instead. That just means the national guard starts
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You're just arguing against the concept of laws in general, then. There is very much sense in which the abstract liberal notion of a Rule of Law and independent judiciary is about ensuring that the interests of capital are insulated from political considerations. If you don’t like capitalism, you might see that as a bad thing. Sometimes individuals get extra civil rights out of this deal, as a treat, but sometimes they don’t. qv this, right now, lol
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What would ignoring the rulings look like? For example, if Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization went ahead as per the leak, what should Democrats currently in power do to enforce Roe v. Wade? Aside from passing legislation, since that wouldn't require ignoring the ruling. In addition to some of the things the other posters in this thread have said: refusal to honor arrest warrants for things that remain legal per Roe, investigations into any non-Roe-compliant actions by states (or subdivisions thereof) that may conflict with federal civil rights legislation (or Title IX, depending on what sort of poo poo some states try to pull), [edit:] refusal to enforce any civil judgments that are an attempt to end-around Roe, terrorism charges for anyone who tries this: Evil Fluffy posted:the locals would just arrest/murder the doctors and patients at their homes instead. eSports Chaebol posted:There is very much sense in which the abstract liberal notion of a Rule of Law and independent judiciary is about ensuring that the interests of capital are insulated from political considerations. That's an obviously better system than "whichever strongman happens to have the most guns right now gets to make the rules." That should go without saying, but alas... tagesschau fucked around with this message at 16:56 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You're just arguing against the concept of laws in general, then. i don't think i am. laws are a structure of such decisions. being in a position to decide what the laws are is an aspect of power.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:That's an obviously better system than "whichever strongman happens to have the most guns right now gets to make the rules." That should go without saying, but alas... I mean I’m not even necessarily disagreeing that an unrestricted parliamentary democracy can be authoritarian but considering it to be strongman rule is unusual and probably needs to be clarified if you want people to understand you, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:You know the US still had actual slavery until around WW2 right? Exploitive prison labor didn't end around WW2. Slavery is still alive and well in that industry today.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I mean I’m not even necessarily disagreeing that an unrestricted parliamentary democracy can be authoritarian but considering it to be strongman rule is unusual and probably needs to be clarified if you want people to understand you, yes. I don't consider parliamentary democracy to be strongman rule. You weren't talking about parliamentary democracy, though—you were just talking about ignoring laws you find inconvenient. That's why I mentioned strongman rule, because ignoring the law if it's inconvenient for you and you have the force to back it up is the essence thereof. tagesschau fucked around with this message at 14:57 on May 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Exploitive prison labor didn't end around WW2. Slavery is still alive and well in that industry today. Sure but I’m referring to actual your average person could purchase a human being and do whatever they want with them slavery. I’m not trying to diminish the evils of the prison industry but more point out how easy to would be to go back to where you, personally, could purchase a slave. And pointing out how the US courts are ultimately illegitimate as they would interpret laws however they see fit and therefor the American public should remove its head from its rear end in believing the courts are some sacred institution worth upholding.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Sure but I’m referring to actual your average person could purchase a human being and do whatever they want with them slavery. Now instead of purchasing a human and doing what you want with them, you can only purchase their severely underpaid forced labour while they're deprived of their freedom. I mean, to be fair, it's a very slight improvement, but not quite as much an improvement as I'm sure we'd like to see.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Now instead of purchasing a human and doing what you want with them, you can only purchase their severely underpaid forced labour while they're deprived of their freedom. AND you get to continue to exploit them or others like them with depressed wages as well as unreportable harassment after they are released from your service.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Now instead of purchasing a human and doing what you want with them, you can only purchase their severely underpaid forced labour while they're deprived of their freedom. It's really just the outsourcing of external costs you didn't need to carry, to the slave themselves. You no longer need to concern yourself with the long-term health of a prisoner, in any circumstance. There's less incentive to preserve their human rights than those of a salt miner in the Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Now instead of purchasing a human and doing what you want with them, you can only purchase their severely underpaid forced labour while they're deprived of their freedom. Oh I’m not doing the lib thing of “progress!!!” or some stupid poo poo like that. Again, prior to WW2, you personally could have purchased a slave, brought them to your home, and tortured them to your hearts content. That ended in WW2 but not via and amendment or anything. It required a president to exercise their power. What I’m getting at is we could immediately go back to that. Nothing is stoping us and certainly not the worthless piece of paper known as the constitution. Let me phrase it like this: what’s stops us from going back to the actual human owning slavery prior to WW2? virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 15:58 on May 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Literally the profit motive. Paying prisoners and detainees $1/day and having no economic incentive to preserve their health or welfare is vastly superior to chattel slavery. e: read this thread, I can't tell if it's parody or not but it's an accurate description of just how fast profits can accelerate in the private prison business https://twitter.com/prisoninvestor1/status/1514598428080173064
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Prison slavery is restricted to corporations and possibly the extremely wealthy. Prior to WWII half of the January 6th rioters could have had a black man cleaning their houses for no pay.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Quote is not edit
The X-man cometh fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
I think that capitalists who wish to just detain and torture their employees/slaves with no repercussions whatsoever largely stick to the tomato farming business.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Really funny seeing Clarence Thomas whining about the reaction saying the Court can't just give you the outcome you want. That's right buddy only the outcome you want. And christ calling upholding the 15 week ban the "moderate" position. https://twitter.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1523302067183390721?s=20&t=YKgHx2Kcr3vhr-dwVVDNQA Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Literally the profit motive. Paying prisoners and detainees $1/day and having no economic incentive to preserve their health or welfare is vastly superior to chattel slavery. That is probably a satirical account, but doesn't mean that it's wrong. https://twitter.com/prisoninvestor1/status/1522594433279090688?cxt=HHwWgICzyb3kq6EqAAAA
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:I don't consider parliamentary democracy to be strongman rule. You weren't talking about parliamentary democracy, though—you were just talking about ignoring laws you find inconvenient. That's why I mentioned strongman rule, because ignoring the law if it's inconvenient for you and you have the force to back it up is the essence thereof. I agree the supreme court should be removed from power for ignoring laws they find inconvenient, Shelby County was the essence of strongman rule VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:24 on May 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:21
|
|
