The Imperial Supreme Court

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related. No insults or personal attacks allowed. Rated G.
Post Reply
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 6101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

The Imperial Supreme Court

Post by Res Ipsa »

I’ve been reading a fair number of essays and articles critiquing the current Supreme Court. I stumbled across this essay by a professor at Stanford Law School that found a theme in the Court’s decisions that I hadn’t thought of before: The Court is taking away the power of all other pets of government, including the power of citizens, except from itself. I think it’s an interesting viewpoint worth thinking about. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.p ... INDEX=TRUE
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Re: The Imperial Supreme Court

Post by Gadianton »

It was short enough so was able to get through the whole thing. Pretty scary, it's as if their message to Trump was, thank you, we'll take it from here. The problem with Trump from a conservative perspective is he's not actually a conservative. He's a good front man for the most gullible regular Joes out there, but he doesn't believe in any of the conservative messages, he just grandstands on them better than other conservative politicians. That's got to bother conservatives in power who actually do believe somewhat in their messages. I have no doubt that someone like Amy Coney is a true believer, 90% ideology and 10% personal power. That's damn scary, actually. Trump I'd say is 5% the message and 95% personal power. All the Republican Supreme Court Justices are conservative ideologues. Kavanaugh is probably the least ideologically motivated due to a high perv factor.

The gist of the article for me is that the Supreme Court is pulling the Supreme Court equivalent of Trumpian executive orders. The final concern shared in the paper is something I wouldn't have expected, and that was the concerning endgame of the Supreme Court nullifying its own power as other power actors, whether they be states or agencies, just ignore the decisions. My takeaway is that the Supreme Court is like the Wizard of Oz.

If the Supreme Court lost confidence, then where would that end things, at the place right-wingers wish, at the state level? Well, I don't think that's what they want if they have a president or a Supreme Court that can enforce Evangelical Christianity on all states. They just say they want state level control so long is they can't control everything. Would be an interesting way to accidently get what they wish for.

What I don't think right-wingers get, although I admit I may need to do some more research here and I'm also drifting off-topic, is that liberalism and progress appear intertwined. Small town California is red, big city California is blue. You can't run small towns and big cities the same way. You can't run an entire country like you might be able to run Elko Nevada. That's the legitimate part of the crux of the problem more than Christian values and whatnot. I'll have to find a good example, but I watch this YouTube guy sometimes who reviews the best and worst parts of cities around the country, he's a right-winger, but definitely entertaining. He'll make the point once in a while about big cities being run into the ground with homelessness problems and crime tolerance, and blame it on Democrats. I'm interested if there's a case to be made there, but when I've poked around a bit, I'm just not seeing the large Republican cities that function so much better. The largest cities tend not to be Republican, because being a large city and having diversity of all kinds is just part of being a metropolis. Big cities in Red states tend to be more liberal because becoming a big city and developing economically go hand-in-hand. As cities get bigger, independent of Red or Blue, all the same problems begin to surface that are found elsewhere, and some of these emerging big cities that are currently Republican might be doing better than the longest standing big cities like LA or Detroit, but I don't see how they aren't on the same trajectory.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1205
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The Imperial Supreme Court

Post by Dr Moore »

Thanks for the link, Res. I never come to this sub, but noticed the subject title on the main landing page and it was too good to ignore. I look forward to reading it.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: The Imperial Supreme Court

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:54 pm
I’ve been reading a fair number of essays and articles critiquing the current Supreme Court. I stumbled across this essay by a professor at Stanford Law School that found a theme in the Court’s decisions that I hadn’t thought of before: The Court is taking away the power of all other pets of government, including the power of citizens, except from itself. I think it’s an interesting viewpoint worth thinking about. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.p ... INDEX=TRUE
I read every word, but did not follow the links in the footnotes.

The author makes his bias very clear.

My response is HELL YES! It is about time we have a conversation about credibility in the courts, credibility in the process and credibility in the system. And hell yes we should talk about the role the Supreme Court and other courts have. And, ROTFLMBO!!!!! I really did get a laugh out of it. For example.
The Imprerial Supreme Court, Mark Lemley, p.14-15 wrote:The Court seems poised to intrude even further on states’ rights next term. It granted certiorari in a voting case in which the petitioner argues that state courts, secretaries of state, and state constitutions have no power to apply state voting laws and that the exclusive decisionmaker for federal election results must be state legislators. A decision for petitioner would not only be a remarkable intrusion on state legal process – essentially holding that Marbury v. Madison is federal law but states are precluded from following it – but presents a real risk that the United States will no longer be permitted to hold democratic elections.

In each of these cases the Court is siphoning power away from the states. Some of those cases involve the Court’s expansion of the few individual rights it favors. More on that in the next section. Others involve Court intervention in how states decide things.
How can you not laugh? This is hysterical. Lemley already knows the outcome because of the justices or because of the facts in the case, or both? I have no idea what the fact are, by the way. But returning power to the Legislatures and ripping it away from jackass courts and Governors is a threat to States' Rights? Huh? The whaaaa? But, on the other hand, nothing could do more to restore credibility in the process than a decision on who gets to make the laws. I get the impression that Lemley is sad that judges at any level in any major city with any liberal bent can't decide federal elections. For him to conclude that a grant of certioriari (they will listen or something like that, hellifino what that means) is "imperial" when this should have been cleared up ages ago, is a bit dramatic.

I really do not care what the Supreme Court does with federal elections. I don't care because I do not vote any more. Why? Because voting is not credible. Why is it not credible? Because how we vote can change and does change and any judge anywhere can just make a decision no matter what the legislature says or wants, so why care and why bother?

See.... I agree with Lemley, the Supreme Court's decision could affect credibility. WE AGREE!
Post Reply