I think they forgot to capitalize the "D" in "democratic" there.As my colleague Matthew Yglesias noted last week, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.
Pwns wrote:https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896 ... nstitution
I think they forgot to capitalize the "D" in "democratic" there.As my colleague Matthew Yglesias noted last week, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.
Is Texas responsible for your delegitimizationalized mind?Col Hogan wrote:I consider myself part of the public...no delegitimization in my mind...
What Hamilton actually wrote is this:When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.
What he's clearly saying there is that the Judiciary would not have much impact on the actual direction of the society. The problem we've allowed to develop is allowing the Judiciary too much power to influence that. It's not supposed to have any force or will. It's not supposed to have any influence on the direction of the society. That is clearly not the case now. The Judiciary, for instance, recently forced all of the States to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages. It was not supposed to be able to do that....the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
“no court can expect to remain immune from severe political pressure ... if it assumes the role of inventing solutions for social problems instead of merely applying those solutions prescribed in democratically adopted statutory or constitutional text.”
I’m sorry, but that’s a really dumb quote...especially considering who it comes from.Winterborn wrote:Good article by Christopher Scalia on the role of the judiciary.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/christo ... nfirmation
I especially like this quote of late Justice Scalia.
“no court can expect to remain immune from severe political pressure ... if it assumes the role of inventing solutions for social problems instead of merely applying those solutions prescribed in democratically adopted statutory or constitutional text.”
Never apologize Klam, it is a sign of weakness.kalm wrote:I’m sorry, but that’s a really dumb quote...especially considering who it comes from.Winterborn wrote:Good article by Christopher Scalia on the role of the judiciary.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/christo ... nfirmation
I especially like this quote of late Justice Scalia.
I will be the first to admit that my grasp on modern politics and players is thin. My reading and focus has been on pre-1945 topics and only recently have I ventured into the modern era. So feel free to explain why you think so, can't promise I will agree but I will listen. 
The SCOTUS isn't the problem - it is a symptom.JohnStOnge wrote:I think the author kind of left out some important things when he wrote this:
What Hamilton actually wrote is this:When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.
What he's clearly saying there is that the Judiciary would not have much impact on the actual direction of the society. The problem we've allowed to develop is allowing the Judiciary too much power to influence that. It's not supposed to have any force or will. It's not supposed to have any influence on the direction of the society. That is clearly not the case now. The Judiciary, for instance, recently forced all of the States to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages. It was not supposed to be able to do that....the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
If we want to fix the situation, we need to take steps to return the Judiciary to its proper place in terms of power to influence the direction of the society. Then we wouldn't have all this crap with big battles over the balance of unelected, life term officials on the Supreme Court.
I don't think the Constitution established EQUAL branches in terms of power. I think it established a government in which Congress is the most powerful Branch and the Judiciary is the least. By far.
Anyway Hamilton didn't write the the Judiciary was the lowest threat to liberty because it was to be above the political fray. He wrote that it would be the lowest threat because it had no power to influence the direction of the society. As soon as we allowed the Court to start influencing the direction of society we lost the basis for saying it's not dangerous.
The SCOTUS isn't the problem - it is a symptom.JohnStOnge wrote:I think the author kind of left out some important things when he wrote this:
What Hamilton actually wrote is this:When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.
What he's clearly saying there is that the Judiciary would not have much impact on the actual direction of the society. The problem we've allowed to develop is allowing the Judiciary too much power to influence that. It's not supposed to have any force or will. It's not supposed to have any influence on the direction of the society. That is clearly not the case now. The Judiciary, for instance, recently forced all of the States to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages. It was not supposed to be able to do that....the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
If we want to fix the situation, we need to take steps to return the Judiciary to its proper place in terms of power to influence the direction of the society. Then we wouldn't have all this crap with big battles over the balance of unelected, life term officials on the Supreme Court.
I don't think the Constitution established EQUAL branches in terms of power. I think it established a government in which Congress is the most powerful Branch and the Judiciary is the least. By far.
Anyway Hamilton didn't write the the Judiciary was the lowest threat to liberty because it was to be above the political fray. He wrote that it would be the lowest threat because it had no power to influence the direction of the society. As soon as we allowed the Court to start influencing the direction of society we lost the basis for saying it's not dangerous.
