(no subject)
19/4/12 14:05![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
gunslnger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsJudge’s Harsh Words for High Court
I'm glad there's some judges (at least one) that are able to see the problems that they're perpetuating. Even SCOTUS decisions need to be reviewed and reconsidered at some point just to make sure that we don't get locked into something that is actually untenable over the long term. And this isn't even dealing with actual decisions but merely with the guidelines for how to come to a decision, which should be much more flexible than they apparently are. I totally agree with Judge Brown's opinion here.
Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to review economic regulations with an extremely deferential “rational basis test,” which requires only that such regulations be “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest.” In practice, this amounts to no meaningful review at all. Courts applying the rational-basis test have concluded, for example, that states may shut down unlicensed florists to protect consumers from the hypothetical dangers of stray corsage pins. Indeed, the test is so deferential that one federal court of appeals upheld a law that restricted the sale of caskets for the sole purpose of “dishing out special economic benefits” to licensed funeral directors.
I'm glad there's some judges (at least one) that are able to see the problems that they're perpetuating. Even SCOTUS decisions need to be reviewed and reconsidered at some point just to make sure that we don't get locked into something that is actually untenable over the long term. And this isn't even dealing with actual decisions but merely with the guidelines for how to come to a decision, which should be much more flexible than they apparently are. I totally agree with Judge Brown's opinion here.
(no subject)
Date: 19/4/12 21:25 (UTC)Ahahahahahahaha!
The side-links on this website! Holy shit the Romney worshiping! This is a great website!
Anyway thanks for the laughs. Personally I think the Constitution is a useful, but ultimately outdated piece of paper and it needs a more modern replacement. We're the only ones left to use such an old document and it's so deliberately vague that our rule of law has basically been shaped by 'interpretations' that put the rule in law more in line with other developed countries. The SCOTUS precedents I would say have more value to this country than the Constitution itself, because they represent a more modern view of society. Of course, reasonable people can differ.
(no subject)
Date: 19/4/12 21:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 00:40 (UTC)I agree, but there's a procedure for that. Just ignoring it or violating it doesn't help us.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 05:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 06:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 02:00 (UTC)If we were tasked with making a new constitution I somehow doubt it would be anything less then "Give the 1% all the power, screw the little people".
It would allow the richest of our country to claim absolute power, and maybe allow them to herd a few of the un-privileged of this country into death camps, because why not they're making the rules now...
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 03:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/4/12 21:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 00:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 02:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/4/12 22:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 00:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 01:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 02:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 17:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 18:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 19:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 23:43 (UTC)I go back over this post (I just got home) because it feels weird to be agreeing with him and not you :D
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/12 05:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 23:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 01:54 (UTC)er...
TMSTTSCOTUS
.. at some point I think acronyms are kind of useless...
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 06:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 00:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 00:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 00:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 01:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 01:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 13:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 01:53 (UTC)Second guessing the Suupreme Court?
Date: 20/4/12 13:49 (UTC)http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/29/local/me-9th-scotus29
That is why so many people call it an 'activist' court.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 14:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 18:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 17:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 18:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 18:00 (UTC)Are those court cases somehow? Those are for the people to reconsider, not the courts.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 02:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 03:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 11:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 14:42 (UTC)Economic due process
Date: 20/4/12 13:44 (UTC)The judge is correct about the trends of the past 100 years or so.
There was a time when property rights were considered 'fundamental' by the Supreme Court, and thus laws which infringed upon them were subject to stricter scrutiny.
A pivotal case often cited is Lochner v New York, which upheld this so-called 'economic due process'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York
It is possible that the court simply became weary of battling the executive and legislative branches of government, who wanted ever more power. It increasingly ruled that in property rights cases, the public must resort to the ballot box to redress their grievances, because the court would no longer do so.
Dr. John E. Finn, Professor of Government at Wesleyan University says that privacy rights have largely replaced property rights in today's society.
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/Course_Detail.aspx?cid=8530&utm_campaign=bazaarvoice&utm_medium=searchvoice&utm_source=ratingsandreviews&utm_content=default
I consider property rights to be fundamental to securing the liberty of all people against government oppression, in agreement with the 5th amendment. The proper remedy is to elect presidents who also hold this view, and who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will enforce this view.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/12 19:23 (UTC)