Skip to main content
Topic: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Read 6268 times)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #75
As far as your own-goal comment, explain please?
Mainly because of the word helpful. But also note that the intent of the words is something very different than a dumb reading of the literal words, if only because words today mean something different today than they did back in 1760. We're talking about a proper interpretation by experts here, not some dumb computer program. :)

Needless to say, I'm quite disappointed in more than a few. But specially Thomas...
You're definitely making me curious; I'll have to read or skim it later. But like I wrote yesterday, I've observed that "Alito is perfectly textualist when the outcome is in line with his views." I've observed it less with Thomas; I agree it'd be disappointing but I wouldn't find it surprising.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #76
The dissent makes some interesting points, but I just can't agree with the conclusion.

The majority says if words are left out, that's done by the lawmakers on purpose. This is a truism. There's nothing to argue with there. It's self-evident. That's how laws are written so that courts will interpret them in that way. They don't accidentally leave out words.

The dissent says that it makes no sense to leave out those words, that it's judicially practically unenforceable or unapplicable. The majority waves this concern away in a mere few sentences. The dissent seems to make a decent few points in this regard.

But then the dissent says that the court should ignore the clear intent expressed by the text of the law, not by calling it unenforceable gibberish or something along similar lines, but by saying the intent clearly expressed by the text of the law should be ignored in favor of what Breyer thinks would make more sense!

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #77
Good! You've cut through to the nuv of the question.

So, then, you would agree that Title VII's term "sex" only substitutes for "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" — for policy reasons...? Had Congress intended the expansive meaning(s), it could have and would have specified such. That, in fact, it repeatedly failed to do so — explicitly so (see Alito's dissent) — is not just telling. It's a determining factor in interpreting the statute.
(If that's indeed what Gorsuch claims to have done... I still maintain that he was legislating. "Words today mean something different than they did back in 1760" doesn't readily comport with words today mean something different  [] than they did yesterday (1970s)! What -it seems to me- you mean is what Humpty Dumpty told Alice...[1]
The majority says if words are left out, that's done by the lawmakers on purpose. This is a truism. There's nothing to argue with there. It's self-evident. That's how laws are written so that courts will interpret them in that way. They don't accidentally leave out words.

And, yes, I do agree that Breyer makes -in his first paragraph- a reasonable sketch of the job. But portraiture requires more... :)
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things. ' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #78
So, then, you would agree that Title VII's term "sex" only substitutes for "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" — for policy reasons...?
No, not in the slightest. Cf. https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=3845.msg84694#msg84694

Gorsuch is crystal clear. A man or a woman is treated in a discriminatory way, which they wouldn't "but for" their sex. Talking about transgender nonsense is nothing but a distraction. Transgender means someone is behaving in a way that's "incorrect" for their sex. Discriminating on the basis of sex is illegal, plain and simple. There wouldn't be any discrimination if there were no sex involved. It's not Gorsuch confusing sex and gender, it's you.  ;)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #79
It's not Gorsuch confusing sex and gender, it's you.   ;)
And the Biden administration, among others! :)

A screed from someone more able to convey what I, too, see...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #80
As Ed Whelan reminds us:
Quote
2017—“The goalposts have been moving over the years,” asserts the en banc Seventh Circuit majority in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. Overriding its own precedent and contradicting nine other circuits, the majority holds that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.

In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Richard A. Posner, advocating a “form of [statutory] interpretation” that he labels “judicial interpretive updating,” states that he “would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of ‘sex discrimination’ that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted.”

In her dissent, Judge Diane S. Sykes, joined by two colleagues, explains that “we do not sit as a common-law court free to engage in ‘judicial interpretive updating,’ as Judge Posner calls it, or to do the same thing by pressing hard on tenuously related Supreme Court opinions, as the majority does.”
As is readily apparent, the issue is decidedly not just a textualist spat: It goes to the heart of what the Justices take to be their job...
Posner's concurrence states it plainly (as quoted above).
 
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #81
To be clear, the full quote is as follows:
I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of "sex discrimination" that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted. This is something courts do fairly frequently to avoid statutory obsolescence and concomitantly to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch. We should not leave the impression that we are merely the obedient servants of the 88th Congress (1963-1965), carrying out their wishes. We are not. We are taking advantage of what the last half century has taught.

I find his attempt to exclude who you're sexually attracted to by reference to an ambulance philosophically extremely unconvincing. Primarily of course for the obvious reasons we've already beaten to death a million times. Even though you may well be able to make a reasonable case that someone back in 1964 didn't think of a particular consequence hardly means it was excluded.

Quote
The second form of interpretation, illustrated by the commonplace local ordinance which commands "no vehicles in the park," is interpretation by unexpressed intent, whereby we understand that although an ambulance is a vehicle, the ordinance was not intended to include ambulances among the "vehicles" forbidden to enter the park. This mode of interpretation received its definitive statement in Blackstone's analysis of the medieval law of Bologna which stated that "whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity." William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *60 (1765). Blackstone asked whether the law should have been interpreted to make punishable a surgeon "who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit." (Bleeding a sick or injured person was a common form of medical treatment in those days.) Blackstone thought not, remarking that as to "the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law... the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them." Id. *59-60. The law didn't mention surgeons, but Blackstone thought it obvious that the legislators, who must have known something about the medical activities of surgeons, had not intended the law to apply to them. And so it is with ambulances in parks that prohibit vehicles.

But additionally the example is self-defeating. There is something called the EMS Act, which explicitly states that all manner of liability, such as going in parks with a no vehicles sign, doesn't apply to ambulances and emergency aid applied by paramedics. There's no Lesbian Exclusion Act. The apocryphal example about Old England is amusing and (presumably) better illustrates the rhetorical point by not suffering from such a defect, but realistically most of his argument can be summarized as "before the 1980s I was barely aware of homosexuals and neither was anyone else," which may well be true but the whole thing is a red herring. It doesn't actually provide support for the central claim.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #82
Heh, I guess I found my favourite.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". [...]

The underlying case began in 1892 when Homer Plessy, a mixed-race resident of New Orleans, deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" railroad accommodations for white and non-white passengers. Plessy was charged with boarding a "whites-only" car, and his lawyers petitioned Judge John Howard Ferguson to throw out the case on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Ferguson overruled Plessy's petition, and the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Ferguson's ruling. Plessy then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

OakdaleFTL, are all citizens of USA equal before law?

And has slavery ended?

Quote from: 13th Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [...] shall exist...
Does this mean slavery doesn't exist, therefore nobody can be prosecuted and be guilty of it? And therefore black codes, segregation, Jim Crow laws etc. were and are all legal?

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #83
Yes, ersi, this is an important case! (Harlan's dissent is noteworthy, for its honesty.)
It took Brown v. Board of Education to overturn the precedent... And that was one of the very few times when -I think- SCOTUS said "Enough is enough!" and usurped the legislative role, cementing the incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

In the U.S., yes, slavery ended as a legal practice and is everywhere prosecutable. If, as your tone implies, you think "black codes, segregation, Jim Crow Laws etc." are legal still — you're mistaken. If you think racial animosity was or has ever been precluded by the passing of laws, you're wrong (and quite naive).
Yes, all citizens of the U.S. are equal before the law — as much as human nature can abide.[1]

Your commentary is quite sparse, and disjointed... Had you a point to make?

The U.S. is one of only two nations to end slavery by civil war. (The other was Haiti...) An interesting comment, no? :)
Moneyed nefarious actors (i.e., Hillary Clinton) seldom face serious prosecution!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #84
Yes, ersi, this is an important case! (Harlan's dissent is noteworthy, for its honesty.)
It took Brown v. Board of Education to overturn the precedent... And that was one of the very few times when -I think- SCOTUS said "Enough is enough!" and usurped the legislative role, cementing the incorporation of the 14th Amendment.
Can you explain how Brown v. Board of Education was legislative rather than constitutional? Did it really try to do more than just affirm the *original intent* of the anti-slavery amendments?

Bonus points if you can explain how both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education are constitutional :) or how one of them is not.

In the U.S., yes, slavery ended as a legal practice and is everywhere prosecutable. If, as your tone implies, you think "black codes, segregation, Jim Crow Laws etc." are legal still — you're mistaken.
Those were the law of the land (well, in many states) for at least a century after the civil war. How could that be for so long if they were/are not legal? When they are in force, they sure as hell are legal!

My tone implies that much of it could still be in force, treated as law of the land by those who are enforcing the law. Even though sometimes there are repercussions for enforcing the law as perceived by the law-enforcers (Chauvin, Guyger) at other times there are not.

What do you think about the persistent idea in USA that non-citizens do not have *any* rights? How "equal" or constitutional is it?

The U.S. is one of only two nations to end slavery by civil war. (The other was Haiti...) An interesting comment, no? :)
Rather, it's indicative that the constitution of USA is a sham: Starts off with proclamations of liberty and equality, and proposes some rights, but in practice institutes slavery and a class society, and even after a civil war does not manage to get things right.

It is interesting how, despite the obvious actual practices that are directly opposite to the good promises of the constitution, USA manages to brainwash many as if it were a land of opportunities, a beacon of liberty and worthy of emulation. Many even think USA is a welfare state - another obvious sham that many take for granted, both those who are in favour and against welfare states.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #85
It is interesting how, despite the obvious actual practices that are directly opposite to the good promises of the constitution, USA manages to brainwash many as if it were a land of opportunities, a beacon of liberty and worthy of emulation.
Ah! There's the old ersi I've come to expect! An axe to grind, although it's already as finely honed as R.J. Howie's... :)

Quote
Ha! whaur ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
I canna say but ye strunt rarely,
Owre gauze and lace;
Tho', faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.

Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her-
Sae fine a lady?
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.

Swith! in some beggar's haffet squattle;
There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle,
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle,
In shoals and nations;
Whaur horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.

Now haud you there, ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rels, snug and tight;
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it-
The verra tapmost, tow'rin height
O' Miss' bonnet.

My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
As plump an' grey as ony groset:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie you sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum.

I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy;
Or aiblins some bit dubbie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss' fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do't?

O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
An' set your beauties a' abread!
Ye little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin:
Thae winks an' finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

(source)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #86
An appropriate change of pace (and case):
Quote
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
@ersi: You wanted to know how Dred and Plessey could have stood (as law) for so long? And that's a fair question, to which most answers would be disingenuous. Roe and Casey are similarly suspect.
@Frenzie: For similar reasons, Gorsuch's reasoned addition to Title VII's definition of "sex" should be reconsidered...  (Consider the perception of the Supreme Court as a constitutional arbiter, if not blush at the neologistic ruse! :) )

Who brought the popcorn? (Hey, Joe: Popcorn, not Cornpop! :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #87
Roe and Casey are similarly suspect.
At a quick glance the only thing that wasn't constitutionally, philosophically and scientifically irrelevant in the brief was the complaint about people in the '60s harping on about antiquity. Though presenting it as if referring to antiquity were a unique feature of Roe is still oddly disingenuous.

For similar reasons, Gorsuch's reasoned addition to Title VII's definition of "sex" should be reconsidered...
Again, there is no such thing. If you discriminate against a man when he does something you think is fine when a woman does it or vice versa then you are discriminating based on their sex. There is no difference in their actions but for their sex. The only correct way to phrase that sentiment is that not all forms of sex-based discrimination are protected against by Title VII. E.g., which job you want to do is protected, but wearing the wrong clothes and dating the wrong people isn't. It's hard to make that case, but at least it's not absurd like claiming the word sex was redefined.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #88
At lögum skal land várt byggja en eigi at ulögum öyða.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #89
And when judges overstep their role they act lawlessly...

But -as recent events have shown- the Left in my country are determined to show who they really are: Violent, vicious partisan fascists... :) That should give the Right breathing room, to effect a substantial swing of the political pendulum — back towards what the Constitution prescribes, informed by our Declaration of Independence.
The Democrats now in power are soon to be toast; and the Republican Party has a good chance to return to its roots.

And SCOTUS can resume its function. The upcoming decision in Dodds will be a good start!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #90
(I'm on the road for the next few days...) Senator Ted Cruz secures yet another victory in the SCOTUS: According to the article in the Epoch Times today, a 6-3 opinion (Breyer  participating still...:) slaps down a rule promulgated by the Federal Elections Commission that would have precluded a campaign -even a successful (prevailing...:) one- from repaying personal loans from the candidate after the election.
Kagen's dissent resorts to the usual leftist fallback position: The Precautionary Principle, in it's Murphy's Law variant: Whatever can go wrong will go wrong. I.e. it looks like there's a possibility for bribery -some quid pro quo shenanigan- hence We Must Preclude! But, please note, no instance of such was noted to support the blatant 1st Amendment violation the rule would make...
(Coming down almost to Baja, I noted: Quite a few places had Old Glory flying at half staff... I wondered who had died, but was mostly driving through mountainous country where radio reception was sporadic and sparse: No news was available... Part way through the evening -after dinner- my little brother explained: "It's in protest to the likely undoing of Roe v Wade!" What cheek!)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #91
{i]I.e[/i].
You make this kind of brackets typos often. Perhaps find a text editor that does BBCode for you?

Kagen's dissent resorts to the usual leftist fallback position: The Precautionary Principle, in it's Murphy's Law variant: Whatever can go wrong will go wrong. {i]I.e[/i]., it looks like there's a possibility for bribery -some quid pro quo shenanigan- hence We Must Preclude! But, please note, no instance of such was noted to support the blatant 1st Amendment violation the rule would make...
First amendment is the wrong thing to emphasise when it comes to political statements and actions. Political statements are not just any old speech. They have to be regulated so that e.g. smear campaigns and attack ads would be restricted.

Moreover, observing how campaign spending correlates with election victory seems to indicate that the victories are purchased. Those who cannot afford to spend on campaigning will have no political voice. How about first amendment for them? Is there a judge who cares about this?

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #92
First amendment is the wrong thing to emphasize when it comes to political statements and actions
@ersi: You couldn't be more wrong: The main reason for the 1st Amendment in the first place was the protection/i] of political speech, in all its forms! No wonder you're bothered by typos -- focusing upon the inconsequential and berating the consequential (and crucial) feeds you voracious sense of superiority...
They have to be regulated so that e.g. smear campaigns and attack ads would be restricted.
Because the electorate is too stupid to note "lies, damn lies and statistics...

observing how campaign spending correlates with election victory seems to indicate that the victories are purchased
(see above) And remember who was the first presidential candidate to forgo matching funds -and thus avoid funding limits- and which candidates of what party have followed suit....
Still, I'd quibble with both the "guilty until proven innocent" view of regulation and the absurd assumption that the regulators are competent, uncorrupted and disinterested...
Is there a judge who cares about this?
Yeah, actually there are many. But most are conservative constitutionalists. You have the same views of "Free Speech" that Bernard Shaw had... :)
Stick to your wheelhouse: As Mark Twain said, "We're all igorant -- only on different subjects!"
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #93
First amendment is the wrong thing to emphasize when it comes to political statements and actions
@ersi: You couldn't be more wrong: The main reason for the 1st Amendment in the first place was the protection/i] of political speech, in all its forms! No wonder you're bothered by typos -- focusing upon the inconsequential and berating the consequential (and crucial) feeds you voracious sense of superiority...
You did the brackets typo again! With you, the brackets typos are the more consequential thing because everything else is outrageous nonsense. Who else besides you says that the first amendment is in the first place about protecting political speech (as in speech of politicians)? This must be tragically delusional.

So-called free speech is - in the first place, i.e. from day one - limited for everyone, such as by libel laws. It is naturally further limited for politicians.

They have to be regulated so that e.g. smear campaigns and attack ads would be restricted.
Because the electorate is too stupid to note "lies, damn lies and statistics...
As expected, you actually do not care zilch about the first amendment. You only care about Republicans winning.

observing how campaign spending correlates with election victory seems to indicate that the victories are purchased
(see above) And remember who was the first presidential candidate to forgo matching funds -and thus avoid funding limits- and which candidates of what party have followed suit....
Therefore abolish funding limits because Obama did it? Why not make him responsible for what he did? Of course, I get it: It's not about first amendment or law and order - it's about increasing chaos and lawlessness so Trumpites and KKK Republicans can proliferate :)

Still, I'd quibble with both the "guilty until proven innocent" view of regulation and the absurd assumption that the regulators are competent, uncorrupted and disinterested...
Also "guilty until proven innocent" works differently for politicians. To show responsibility the politician should often resign in the face of a scandal long before he is proven guilty or innocent. You have clearly no clue about the role of politicians.

As to "absurd assumption that the regulators are competent, uncorrupted and disinterested" - the regulators are politicians and judges themselves! I have no assumption that they are competent or disinterested. They have to be tied down first and foremost and always more strictly than the rest of the people!

Is there a judge who cares about this?
Yeah, actually there are many. But most are conservative constitutionalists.
Then you are not a conservative constitutionalist.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #94
So-called free speech is - in the first place, i.e. from day one - limited for everyone, such as by libel laws.
Your view is perverse: Libel laws don't limit speech, per se, they merely reflect one of the ways society notes that speech is consequential!
As expected, you actually do not care zilch about the first amendment. You only care about Republicans winning.
Your ability to maintain a mistaken view is phenomenal! :) (Take that as a compliment...:)

Therefore abolish funding limits because Obama did it?
I've always been against campaign funding limits, for many reasons. First, any proposed mechanism is soon "captured" by the powers-that-be"... Second, when monies are limited those that control already the means of "being heard" become gate-keepers of a sort: Such a position is not baked into our democracy, and any installation of such is bound to become detrimental (i.e. devolve...); hence leaving funding free to find its way to campaigns is one way to preclude their installation.

To show responsibility the politician should often resign in the face of a scandal
Rule by piety and propriety works no better in individuals than it does in states. Innuendo and rumor are the news, for large swarths of any public. But they are sensibly rejected in a Re-public. (Methinks you're just being contentious...:)

Your every proposed adjustment to rationalize or reform our system, one which you clearly do not understand, run up against the "who will watch the watchers" dilemma. Our politicians are citizens first, never quite rulers, and finally mere citizens again! I'm sorry the concept is beyond your understanding... :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #95
So-called free speech is - in the first place, i.e. from day one - limited for everyone, such as by libel laws.
Your view is perverse: Libel laws don't limit speech, per se, they merely reflect one of the ways society notes that speech is consequential!
Whereas your - and supreme court's - idea that campaign finance rules limit candidates' first amendment rights means that the candidates can pay their way out of the consequences of their speech. That's my point.

I've always been against campaign funding limits, for many reasons. First, any proposed mechanism is soon "captured" by the powers-that-be"... Second, when monies are limited those that control already the means of "being heard" become gate-keepers of a sort: Such a position is not baked into our democracy, and any installation of such is bound to become detrimental (i.e. devolve...); hence leaving funding free to find its way to campaigns is one way to preclude their installation.
There is no "become". Those who got the position of control are already the gate-keepers. At any moment, the system is already in place and the point for the future would be to make the system more accessible, not less, and also less bloated money-wise, make its costs proportionate to its function, not let it get out of hand. Your point is of course the opposite - make the system expensive without limits so as to let only the most affluent in. Or the most corrupted. The effect of your idea is to give all the power to the gate-keepers and only big money can buy one a place among them.

Whatever happened to the idea of small government? Well, I know what happened to it. Those who say they want small government have always bloated it. Small government never was their ideal.

Your every proposed adjustment to rationalize or reform our system, one which you clearly do not understand, run up against the "who will watch the watchers" dilemma. Our politicians are citizens first, never quite rulers, and finally mere citizens again! I'm sorry the concept is beyond your understanding... :)
The watchers' dilemma is simple enough so that even you should understand it: Politicians and civil servants have the power that includes watching themselves. Unfortunately you do not understand it. You want to let your favourites run amok with no checks and balances. The president of USA is the clearest example of a position with no checks on his power - there is a lengthy section in the constitution about impeachment, but it has been historically rarely deployed and never worked when deployed. The founding fathers messed that one up big time.

As a general rule, I suggest more restrictions on politicians rather than less, and calling them out whenever they break the rules. They themselves are the ones creating and imposing the rules, so breaking such rules is extreme hypocrisy and cynicism. In turn, extreme hypocrisy and cynicism is a good reason to be kicked out of office without much deliberation, particularly when it comes to the kind of office politicians have.

And my text editor kicks your text editor's butt!!!

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #96
And my text editor kicks your text editor's butt!!!
I'm sure you're quite right -- about that! :) (I'm still on the road; it's been a wonder-full few days.) You must know, keyboards I use suit me more or less, but since my stroke and ongoing recovery of function -- my left hand is the laggard (and the more pain wracked) while the right tends to over compensate: I keep finding it using the "k" as its home key instead of "j"...:) Add to such complications, most keyboards I use feel too small for my hands; I still miss my old AT-style IBM keyboard: sturdy metal case, to every facet of touch it performed just like a Selectric electric typewriter! (The closest to that was the integral keyboard on the Televideo 910 terminal, which I also no longer have....:)
I realize I often leave typos strewn about. But I figure everybody knows how to type and, hence, even my typos are readily readably still English! :) But I'll try to be more careful... (Vision permitting.)

The point you pose in your post deserve a serious and perhaps a somewhat more loquacious response.... (After I get home to my computer.:)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #97
As a general rule, I suggest more restrictions on politicians rather than less, and calling them out whenever they break the rules. They themselves are the ones creating and imposing the rules, so breaking such rules is extreme hypocrisy and cynicism. In turn, extreme hypocrisy and cynicism is a good reason to be kicked out of office without much deliberation, particularly when it comes to the kind of office politicians have.

And my text editor kicks your text editor's butt!!!
Well, I've been back for a while; weird and convoluted family stuff occupying much of my time. Oh, and my Mac mini has been out of service for a while... (Had to resurrect its previous incarnation! And its keyboard, another logitech model which -as luck would have it- is much like the Lenovo model I used at a hotel in Bakersfield!:) I'm afraid I don't take these (...or other) posts seriously enough to use an editor, beyond what the forum software provides. We're just talkin', see? :)

Now to the meat of your comment: :raspberry: You're willing to allow the foxes to guard the henhouse, and expecting them to behave because — well, just because it's an honor to serve, and only honorable men would seek to do such service...

Your world must be comprised of more than my meager 4-dimensional manifold! :)

If one's society has lost its last whit of vitality and rejected its least bulwark of tradition, perhaps your apathetic attitude would be justified.

Did you perchance watch the Dem's January 6 Commemorative production of "We Hate Trump!" tonight on TV (also billed as the Committee to re-impeach the former president, and the American people...?:)?!
A trial, without opposing counsel, the prosecutors doing onerous duty as judge and jury, too! Of course such diligent public servants should be kept in power, no? :)
But the American electorate is -shall we say?- fickle? :)

Well, lookie what wa a'waitin' in my mailbox after posting the above... https://www.takimag.com/article/blind-and-blissful/
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #98
Now to the meat of your comment: :raspberry: You're willing to allow the foxes to guard the henhouse, and expecting them to behave because — well, just because it's an honor to serve, and only honorable men would seek to do such service...
I expected something utterly stupid and widely missing the mark... and I got it.

But here's how you can improve your answer: Tell me how those fabulous founding fathers have arranged something different than what you bemoan, how they have envisioned people in high offices of power that are actually not in power, how there is some non-government office that is able to hold them accountable, how there are all sorts of checks and balances that actually work etc... Come on. Show how USA is something different than the rest of the world.

Of course, never forthcoming.

Your world must be comprised of more than my meager 4-dimensional manifold! :)
Your world consists of one dimension: The Anti-Dem Party line.

Did you perchance watch the Dem's January 6 Commemorative production of "We Hate Trump!" tonight on TV (also billed as the Committee to re-impeach the former president, and the American people...?:)?!
A trial, without opposing counsel, the prosecutors doing onerous duty as judge and jury, too!
Very rjhowie of you to talk about what you saw on your tellie. I don't know what TV you are watching and what committee you saw there, but it seems that it was not something part of the judicial system. Therefore don't whine that it is not arranged exactly like a court of law. If it is not a court of law, then it does not have to operate like one.

Grow up. Well, you are already old, so too late.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #99
So: You didn't hear about the "abortion activist from California" who was arrested for trying to kill or maim Justice Kavanaugh? (And you're unaware that the House January 6th Committee's hearings are being aired live (except for the professionally produced segments) in an effort to distract the electorate from the current administration's many failures?[1]:)
As I mentioned, when the culture cedes its legitimacy and rejects its traditions, forms of government won't save it...

About my anti-Dem stance: Kindly point to a Democrat deserving of my vote!? :) (Don't forget to add "Trump/America bad!":)
The main point is preventing Trump from running again...because, well, you know!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)