Basically agree with you. (Justice Marshall decided that courts have the power to rule that laws violate the constitution.)
I think that in some countries a court that finds a law somehow invalid is obligated to suggest changes that would make it valid -- and not just throw it out. (Perhaps that's the same thing you read.) Drawing a line between policy and legal issues would be one way to "harden" the courts against overt political interference. But can it be done in a way that would be widely accepted and then implemented? -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 9:43 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > I've forgotten what venue it was. But someone made the argument that > elsewhere (other countries), courts don't have the power to strike down > entire laws, and that extensive power is not inherent in our laws, either > ... that it was somehow more convention than written in stone. They made > the argument that John Roberts understands this, and understands that if > the populace begins to reject the legitimacy of SCOTUS decisions, a flood > of techniques could be used to degrade the courts' authority (much like the > trends in the "unitary executive" have degraded Congress' authority). > > It seems like that argument is relevant to at least one of your questions. > > For me, until Kavanaugh, I'd never really realized how political the > SCOTUS actually is [⛧]. The membership is pretty much locked down by the > Senate. And the Senate is the rural/right bastion, the core representation > problem. We complain a lot about the electoral college. But it's the > structure of the Senate that's the real problem for progressivism. So, for > me, they've lost all patina of "objectivity" at this point. They're as > vapidly political/partisan as the House. We may as well admit this loss of > credibility and find a way to "harden" it against abuse. Of course, the Rs > don't "govern". So we're left in the unfortunate position of relying on the > Ds to do it, if it'll be done at all. > > > [⛧] Yes, I know. All the signs were there my entire life. What can I say? > I'm a moron. It took a Frat boy being confirmed to make me realize it. > > On 10/13/20 9:18 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > Amy Coney Barrett said that judges should stick to legal > issues and leave policymaking to legislatures. > > > > "A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. > Sometimes that approach meant reaching results he does not like. Courts are > not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public > life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made > by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The > public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try," > > > > Let's assume she is intellectually honest and will do her best to live > by this distinction. Do you think that's possible? How would you draw a > line between legal issues and policy decisions? How could a court refuse to > deal with cases that seem to require them to make policy decisions? Do you > think a framework for courts could be established along these lines that > would widely accepted? > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
