The Trumperium 2: Caesar by the Pussy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    But their activism isn't maintaining the status quo. They're striking down settled law, like sections of the Voting Rights Act. Or they're massively redefining gun rights, as in Heller. Or they're busy plotting to overturn Roe and Casey. Or they're inventing Constitutional Corporate Personhood out of whole cloth.

    That's not status quo maintenance.
     
  2. Solfege

    Solfege Unspeakable DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Status quo could use some defining. I believe Agayek refers to the current (again, moving-average) behaviors of the populace at large. They want to keep the guns and privilege to bear publicly that they've built up over time, so have a right formally defined as such. They want to be able to discriminate or disenfranchise as were capable of, at least have the optionality to do so and let the market of geographic ideas decide the outcome, as in a naive (first-approximate) solution, OR (not very conservatively) they're just responding reflexively to progressive arguments that aim to fix a distorted market, but builds on top those second-order effects Sauce mentioned in IRC.

    I got no rationale for corporate personhood. But the point is, people want to keep doing what they've been doing for the past 30-50 years, even if what they're doing has been an invention of those 30-50 years. The jurisprudence to justify, as originalism or textualism or whatever, is just icing on the cake.

    This definitely applies to the (nonjudicial) matter of "traditional American make" and "traditional American jobs" --- a phenomenon that came out of what was likely a historic anomaly, the period from the 1950s till the 1980s. Well-paid middle-class jobs, factory jobs that could support a mortgage, car, college education for the kids, cannot be taken for granted. The ultimate historic norm is the unstructured struggle for daily survival that defines so much of the world outside the OECD. The past few decades have seen corporations shifting back to favoring a gig economy, although it seems to be a temporary (for now) trend that's peaked at 11% of the participating labor force.

    Or "traditional" middle-class suburbs/zoning policy and nuclear, non-multigenerational families. Used to be in the old days any widowed housewife could open up a boarding house. A lot of the good stuff that underlies good social conservatism are similar anomalies out of the 20th century.

    Like, literally. 1920s Americans, with whom we can actually relate relatively well, are completely unrecognizable from an 1870s standpoint.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
  3. Agayek

    Agayek Alchemist

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,360
    What Solfege said.

    Also, as I said a couple of times, I'm not giving an absolutist "all conservative judges always preserve the status quo". I'm saying "conservative judges lean toward preserving the status quo", which has the obvious knock-on effect that more of their decisions tend to be about preserving the status quo than liberal judges, who lean toward changing the status quo.
     
  4. Arthellion

    Arthellion Ban(ned) Arthellion

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Agayek basically said everything I was trying to say.

    I’m not idiotic enough to think every conservative judge is like Scalia (though would be great if they were), but conservative judges tend to be more textualist/originalist in philosophy even if not in action than liberal judges.
     
  5. Johnnyseattle

    Johnnyseattle Unspeakable DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    746
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Well, just wait until you take a gander at some of the people on the list of possible replacements for Kennedy. I think this is where a lot of the recent worrying about sweeping changes is coming from - there are some real peaches in there that have absolutely no business on something that is, in theory, supposed to be non-partisan. With the balance swinging a bit further in the "conservative" direction with the appointment of one of the more radical ones, you never know what will happen these days.

    Then again, we already basically have a closet KKK member as the attorney general, so fuck the judicial system anyway.
     
  6. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    I understand that that's what you're saying. What I'm saying is that it isn't true.
     
  7. fire

    fire High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    596
    Darth Revan is correct. It's not just that the federalist society hacks would run interference against healthcare expansion or block any action on climate change - that would indeed conserve the status quo i.e. be conservative - it's that they also want to roll back any progress made over the last fifty years - the CRA (already effectively gutted by Roberts), Roe v Wade + Casey (up on the chopping block next), Obgerfell (eventually).

    They are properly termed reactionaries - for they want to turn back the clock to the status quo ante.
     
  8. Invictus

    Invictus Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,211
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Status Quo Ante Judicial Activism/Judicial Legislation. Hence my quest. Striking down effectively judicial legislation is activism from which of the sides? There's a huge difference between overturning Congress laws and Courts precedents that effectively became laws.

    What you quoted were almost all legal cases that created imposing federal laws overturning state/earlier federal laws in with the Judiciary assuming a role it wasn't created for. Specially when it overturned state legislation regarding subjects that were being left to the states, I can see why a lot of judges could see it merely as voiding judicial activism.
     
  9. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Your basis for this statement is...?

    The Court's role is to interpret and enforce the Constitution. So if a State is violating it...then the Court stepping in is absolutely their role.
     
  10. Agayek

    Agayek Alchemist

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,360
    Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. I don't mean the legal status quo; I'm referring to cultural and societal norms. The American Right, for better or worse, wants to go back to the "glory days" of 1952. At the same time, like it or not, a large majority of Americans are both white and middle class, and if you turn back the clock to those days, the only change of real significance in their daily lives is economic.

    As a result, the GOP's attempts to turn back the clock don't stand out all that much; it has minimal impact on that aforementioned large majority of Americans. Which is why conservative judges are less likely to be called out on activism; the majority doesn't really notice the impact, so it slides (relatively) under the radar.
     
  11. Invictus

    Invictus Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,211
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    I'm not arguing he ability to strike down inconstitutional laws. I'm arguing against positively creating laws when striking down such laws and creating new federally enforced rights where they didn't exist before.

    Regarding who said that the Judiciary shouldn't legislate, I'm going with Montesquieu. , A person who the US Constitution mostly followed when it wrote the separation of powers.

    The definition of judiciary is against such role
    source

    The Marbury vs Madison decision did not create a free for all Legislative role for the Judiciary and as far a law theorists are concerned it should be the exception of the excepition and in most cases only when the legislative is omitting itself.

    In any democracy it should be highly worrying that a technical, unelected and tiny body of civil servants are effectively replacing the entire Legislative branch when creating huge landmark social and political changes via legislation. Imposition, to the contrary of creation and approval, of laws isn't normal.

    source
    While this may appear simplistic it seems to be forgetting what the original and main role of the Judiciary is.

    Hell, US Judiciary's power to exercise judicial review—its sole meaningful check on the other two branches—is not explicitly granted by the U.S Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court exercised its power to strike down congressional acts as unconstitutional only twice prior to the Civil War: in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Dred Scott v. Sandford(1857). Both, I don't have to say, we're incredibly politically charged judgements and we're done very far from when the US Constitution was written. An originalist can credibly claim that while a natural development, the power to strike down laws surely doesn't have the power to create positive laws by consequence and frame it as a breach of the system of checks and balances where the Judiciary is effectively creating Constitutional amendments unilaterally which can only be overcome by an insanely high bar (2/3 of both houses of Congress).

    There's ample room for discussion and such vision in the US Law theories I feel. Again, while in no means the right opinion (which doesn't exist in theory anyway) it is a perfectly valid one.
    --- Post automerged ---
    Pruitt is out.

     
  12. Rehio

    Rehio Alchemist DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,441
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Thank fucking god Pruitt is gone. I don't know how he managed to be so blatantly awful and still manage to cling to his position.

    Here's hoping whoever's taking over isn't a complete scumbag.
     
  13. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,853
    Would you like some pig wings with that order of hope? I'm sure the follow-up to Pruitt is going to look perfectly reasonable, because a polished turd would look reasonable next to him.
     
  14. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Too late! The Acting Administrator (and current Deputy Administrator) is a former chief lobbyist for the coal industry.
     
  15. Agayek

    Agayek Alchemist

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,360
    It's the Trump Administration. I'm reasonably confident there's an immutable law of the universe that Trump cannot employ someone who isn't total scum.
     
  16. KHAAAAAAAN!!

    KHAAAAAAAN!! Troll in the Dungeon Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,496
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Under your bed.
    High Score:
    2,002
  17. Arthellion

    Arthellion Ban(ned) Arthellion

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
  18. Imariel

    Imariel Order Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    875
    Location:
    Stockholm
    There is a joke somewhere in there about the first mentioned sector by the journalist was soybeans.
     
  19. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,330
    Location:
    Hbg., Germany
    Any last minute-bets on the SCOTUS pick? Reportedly, Hardiman is back on the list, making it four (him, Kethledge, Kavanaugh and Barrett). I'm not about to get all expectant for you, but if it ends up being Hardiman, he might be someone who you could almost call a moderate in this day and age, from some stuff I'm reading. (Then again, UCLA folks called him a "2nd amendment extremist", so if that's your thing, you might have a problem.)

    I'd expect a clear confirmation in that case -- including the 4, 5 Dem senators from red states up for election. Interesting how that would play with the base, though -- much like the Obamacare repeal idiocy, there is nothing the Democrats can do, really, and especially if/with Hardiman, it'd be pointless to possibly risk re-election, but how many people want to hear that?
     
  20. point09micron

    point09micron Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Messages:
    134
    So he's an "extremist" for his view that the right to bear arms means to be able to carry them with you, rather than own them and keep them locked in a safe at home? What an asshole, to have such a perfectly reasonable interpretation of bearing something.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. fire
    Replies:
    2,071
    Views:
    245,660