1607: "Supreme Court"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Mikeski
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Mikeski » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:21 am UTC

Image

title text = Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy called the man's arguments that he could be either Alito or Ginsburg "surprisingly compelling, but ultimately unconvincing."

In a related 100-9 decision, the court stated "The Supreme Court is not haunted by the spirits of past Justices, nuh-uh, no way."

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:31 am UTC

Pffff. This one actually made me laugh.

As did OP's alternate alt-text.

Mikeski
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Mikeski » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:44 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:As did OP's alternate alt-text.
Well, thank ya!

I found it interesting that there are exactly 100 deceased Justices.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby orthogon » Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:23 am UTC

This Guy's main mistake was not bringing along nine friends.

Who do we think he is, anyway? Sounds a bit like Beret Guy's M.O., except he'd have won the vote, somehow.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

teelo
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby teelo » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:04 am UTC

More than seven judges on the bench? What is with your judicial system.

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:47 am UTC

Anyone care to explain this one to those of us outside America with no (or little) understanding of your strange legal system.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:17 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:Anyone care to explain this one to those of us outside America with no (or little) understanding of your strange legal system.


It's not that weird (at least compared with, say Aussie Rules Football). There are nine sitting judges on the Supreme Court, so the fact that there are 10 votes here, one of which is in opposition, is a simple count of nine actual judges and the one guy who sneaked in.

Hey, maybe I should get a job at explainxkcd.com :mrgreen:

Tho' frankly I would have expected the current SCOTUS members to check Mr. #10's bank account, and if it were over $100 million, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas would have voted him onto the bench.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:06 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:Anyone care to explain this one to those of us outside America with no (or little) understanding of your strange legal system.


As someone outside the US, I'm not convinced this bit of their legal system is that strange. Their ultimate legal authority is a group of nine experienced judges whose majority opinion settles any question of interpretation (until and unless new laws are passed with bearing on the matter). Nine people gives more viewpoints to consider every angle rather than a single person's prejudices deciding everything, and, as an odd number, deadlock is (usually) going to be avoided.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Diadem » Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:12 pm UTC

Personally I think 9 people is a bit on the small side for a supreme court. For discussions and voting it's a nice number. Many more would make discussions too chaotic, while many less would leave too few viewpoints. However with 9 people you'll never have enough expertise in every area of law. That probably wasn't an issue 250 years ago, but the law has become a lot more complex since then.

Still I certainly wouldn't call it strange. It's a pretty logical arrangement.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:25 pm UTC

Technically the Constitution doesn't specify what the number of seats on the court should be. It can be any size we choose. We could make it 500 seats. We could make it 1 seat. There's no real limitations on the number of seats.

It has fluctuated throughout history already. I believe the lowest ever set was 6 (when it began) and the highest was 10.

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to pass a bill which could have made the maximum number of seats 15 or so, but it was widely viewed as him trying to pack the court and it failed miserably.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Diadem » Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:54 pm UTC

Really? So what stops Obama from just appointing 500 democrats?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby mathmannix » Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:56 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Really? So what stops Obama from just appointing 500 democrats?


Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. Bit of a checks and balances there. See above, when FDR tried to raise the limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... ll_of_1937) and got shut down.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:03 pm UTC

That make a bit of sense as to what its all about. Thought there might have been some news about someone pretending to be one of these judges recently and the story never made it across the water.
All I really know about American courts is what I've seen on "The Good Wife" when being forced to watch it.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:17 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:That make a bit of sense as to what its all about. Thought there might have been some news about someone pretending to be one of these judges recently and the story never made it across the water.
All I really know about American courts is what I've seen on "The Good Wife" when being forced to watch it.


Could be worse: you might have had to watch the 1960's Perry Mason shows.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

iabervon
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:25 am UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby iabervon » Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:37 pm UTC

Well, he's certainly not Thomas...

Justin Lardinois
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:47 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Justin Lardinois » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:08 pm UTC

I'm not sure I see how a larger Court would really change anything. Really, the most important thing is that there's an odd number of justices, so that tie votes are nearly impossible. Recusals happen on rare occasions, but to my knowledge it's always been because a new justice joined the Court after a case had already began, and thus wasn't able to participate.

Diadem wrote:Really? So what stops Obama from just appointing 500 democrats?


As the other guy said, the size of the Court is up to Congress, not the president. Also, even when the president does get the chance to appoint justices, they have to be confirmed by Congress, which we've seen become quite an arduous process in recent decades.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Keyman » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:17 pm UTC

Justin Lardinois wrote:I'm not sure I see how a larger Court would really change anything. Really, the most important thing is that there's an odd number of justices, so that tie votes are nearly impossible. Recusals happen on rare occasions, but to my knowledge it's always been because a new justice joined the Court after a case had already began, and thus wasn't able to participate.

Diadem wrote:Really? So what stops Obama from just appointing 500 democrats?


As the other guy said, the size of the Court is up to Congress, not the president. Also, even when the president does get the chance to appoint justices, they have to be confirmed by Congress, which we've seen become quite an arduous process in recent decades.

Only small quibble, but it's only the Senate (not the House of Representative) that needs to confirm the life-time appointment.
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby orthogon » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:33 pm UTC

The strange thing about the US judicial system, IMHO, is that supreme court justices are overtly partisan at all, though I suppose the argument would be that it's better than being covertly partisan. Also, that District Attorneys are directly elected. It's interesting watching Law and Order UK, whose plot lines are lifted from the US version, but have to be stretched to fit: the DA will want to take a case one way because he wants to be reelected, whereas his UK counterpart has to complain that "the phone is ringing a lot", or at worst that he's getting a bollocking from the Home Secretary.

Oh, another strange thing is that the US Supreme Court is conceptually interpreting the unchanging Constitution as it applies to particular new circumstances, whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

That can't be altogether that unusual. Social norms change faster than constitutions in most stable governments.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Keyman » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:55 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Oh, another strange thing is that the US Supreme Court is conceptually interpreting the unchanging Constitution as it applies to particular new circumstances, whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).

I've had this argument...actually it more that I've refereed this argument between one 'liberal' brother and another 'conservative' brother. The Constitution as a "living document" vs. preserving the "Original intent" of the signers. Especially as the biggest/loudest issues debated/disputed are often not about parts of the "original" Constitution but rather in interpretation of the Amendments, from the first ten (The "Bill of Rights") thru the subsequent seventeen. (Note - #27 was Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. Anyway....) In my personal view, the USSC has been interpreting the document to apply the rights enumerated in it to people who at the time of the writing, were not considered 'worthy' of those rights, i.e any non-male, non-white, non-landowning "gentleman". And there's a pendulum effect - often rights are restricted, to be later expanded, to be later... ect. Though when they extended the right of free speech to apply to corporations, both brothers agree they went too far.
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

xtifr
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby xtifr » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:06 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:The strange thing about the US judicial system, IMHO, is that supreme court justices are overtly partisan at all, though I suppose the argument would be that it's better than being covertly partisan.


Technically, they are covertly partisan. It's just such an open "secret" that nobody bothers pretending we don't all know.

Whenever a vacancy opens up, the standing president nominates a replacement candidate. The candidate must be approved by Congress, but everyone knows that the president's not going to nominate anyone who isn't more-or-less on his side, politically, so there's little point in Congress trying to hold out for a more neutral nominee. So, basically, you know the political leanings of the Justices by checking who nominated them.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Keyman » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:17 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:
orthogon wrote:The strange thing about the US judicial system, IMHO, is that supreme court justices are overtly partisan at all, though I suppose the argument would be that it's better than being covertly partisan.


Technically, they are covertly partisan. It's just such an open "secret" that nobody bothers pretending we don't all know.

Whenever a vacancy opens up, the standing president nominates a replacement candidate. The candidate must be approved by Congress, but everyone knows that the president's not going to nominate anyone who isn't more-or-less on his side, politically, so there's little point in Congress trying to hold out for a more neutral nominee. So, basically, you know the political leanings of the Justices by checking who nominated them.

Not so sure that works as neatly as you might think. David Souter sure surprised GHW Bush. Nixon has an issue or three with Warren Berger. Eisenhower and Earl Warren. That's supposed to be part of the 'magic' of the lifetime appointment. Freed from political pressure, the Justices are free to seek..."justice".
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:16 pm UTC

There are ways around a lifetime appointment...

Justin Lardinois
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:47 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Justin Lardinois » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:42 pm UTC

Let's all appreciate the subtle humor in the "9-1" count.

Keyman wrote:
Justin Lardinois wrote:I'm not sure I see how a larger Court would really change anything. Really, the most important thing is that there's an odd number of justices, so that tie votes are nearly impossible. Recusals happen on rare occasions, but to my knowledge it's always been because a new justice joined the Court after a case had already began, and thus wasn't able to participate.

Diadem wrote:Really? So what stops Obama from just appointing 500 democrats?


As the other guy said, the size of the Court is up to Congress, not the president. Also, even when the president does get the chance to appoint justices, they have to be confirmed by Congress, which we've seen become quite an arduous process in recent decades.

Only small quibble, but it's only the Senate (not the House of Representative) that needs to confirm the life-time appointment.


I'm aware. I was using Congress collectively, as the confusion seemed to be about the branches of government.

orthogon wrote:The strange thing about the US judicial system, IMHO, is that supreme court justices are overtly partisan at all, though I suppose the argument would be that it's better than being covertly partisan. Also, that District Attorneys are directly elected. It's interesting watching Law and Order UK, whose plot lines are lifted from the US version, but have to be stretched to fit: the DA will want to take a case one way because he wants to be reelected, whereas his UK counterpart has to complain that "the phone is ringing a lot", or at worst that he's getting a bollocking from the Home Secretary.


Appointed judges in the US are almost exclusive to the federal government. Except for a few jurisdictions, state and local judges are subject to election, either directly, or through yes/no retention elections that happen every so often after they're first appointed by a governor.

orthogon wrote:Oh, another strange thing is that the US Supreme Court is conceptually interpreting the unchanging Constitution as it applies to particular new circumstances, whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).


I'm not a huge fan of appeals to original intent, and I think this issue is a good example of why. Gay people were severely marginalized in the 1790s, and I think the idea of same-sex marriage was probably unheard of and therefore most of the framers would not have had an opinion. Furthermore, I think the idea of the government being relevant at all when it comes to who can and can't marry would probably be foreign to them as well. Legal marriage is most important today for tax and inheritance purposes. There was no federal income tax until the Civil War, and I doubt most states required marriage licenses at the time the Constitution was written. When it came to inheritance matters back then, the concept of common law marriage would resolve any dispute that two people were married; simply being of opposite sexes and cohabitation for a long period of time used to be enough to be considered married in many states.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:44 pm UTC

Keyman wrote:
orthogon wrote:Oh, another strange thing is that the US Supreme Court is conceptually interpreting the unchanging Constitution as it applies to particular new circumstances, whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).

I've had this argument...actually it more that I've refereed this argument between one 'liberal' brother and another 'conservative' brother. The Constitution as a "living document" vs. preserving the "Original intent" of the signers.

A thing that drives me nuts about that argument is the way that it gets framed as a "liberal" (really "progressive") vs "conservative" issue at all. I consider myself both liberal (in both the classical and modern senses) and progressive, in that I want lots of change to government, all of it the direction of greater liberty and equality. But I don't want the government do just do whatever it feels like, or whatever the present political winds influence it to do. Ostensibly, the constitution is the source of all government power (The United States Constitution for the federal government, individual states' constitutions for their governments); the government isn't allowed to do anything but what we allow it to, and the constitution is the written permission to do the things we allow. If it can then reinterpret that "permission slip" to mean anything it wants, then we're just giving it blanket permission to do whatever it wants. If we want it to do different things -- and I think we should -- then we should change what it is we've granted it permission to do, not just let it get away with doing things we haven't explicitly permitted.

I see it as kind of analogous to Christian fundamentalists vs liberal Christians. I don't agree completely with either group, but I agree with the latter group more. However, both appeal to the Bible as authoritatively backing their beliefs; but the former interpret it strictly and literally and follow through wholeheartedly with all the terribleness that that entails, while the latter pick and choose and reinterpret it to mean what they want it to mean. Sticking to it as written gives you terrible results, but taking it to mean whatever you'd like leaves you with absolutely nothing to back you up. If don't want to follow the religion as laid out in the text, that's fine, that's great, but then don't claim the text backs you up; you need to find something else to back you up.

Likewise, if you don't want us to have the government exactly as laid out in the Constitution, that's probably a good thing, but then you need a different (amended) constitution to authorize that or else you're just asking for the government to act without any proper authorization.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:20 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I see it as kind of analogous to Christian fundamentalists vs liberal Christians. I don't agree completely with either group, but I agree with the latter group more. However, both appeal to the Bible as authoritatively backing their beliefs; but the former interpret it strictly and literally and follow through wholeheartedly with all the terribleness that that entails, while the latter pick and choose and reinterpret it to mean what they want it to mean. Sticking to it as written gives you terrible results, but taking it to mean whatever you'd like leaves you with absolutely nothing to back you up. If don't want to follow the religion as laid out in the text, that's fine, that's great, but then don't claim the text backs you up; you need to find something else to back you up.


I'd be surprised if there were as many as a dozen Christians who follow all the rules laid down in Leviticus - like the bit about all sold land reverting every 50 years (except for dwellings within a walled city) unless bought back sooner (the price depending on the original sale price, and how many years remain until automatic reversion).

Zacen299
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:52 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Zacen299 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:17 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I'd be surprised if there were as many as a dozen Christians who follow all the rules laid down in Leviticus - like the bit about all sold land reverting every 50 years (except for dwellings within a walled city) unless bought back sooner (the price depending on the original sale price, and how many years remain until automatic reversion).



Yeah I'd imagine the same as I'm pretty sure most Christians pretty much ignore the rules and laws in the Old Testament (minus the commandments). Minus the like 3 groups that actually literally interpret the bible but they tend to be tiny as completely living by all of the bible turns pretty much everyone off.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Whizbang » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:26 am UTC

Zacen299 wrote: (minus some of the commandments)


FTFY

RogueCynic
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby RogueCynic » Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:08 am UTC

Is it possible the extra "judge" is responsible for the controversial decisions in 2000 and 2004? Also, I find it amusing the "conservatives" purport a literal translation of the constitution but use an interpretation of the amendment on gun control. The amendment states " being necessary for the defense, in a well regulated militia Congress shall pass no law denying the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia implies a trained, responsible group which would answer for their actions, not BillyBob and Bubba going out to hunt. Also, great comic.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:47 am UTC

RogueCynic wrote:The amendment states " being necessary for the defense, in a well regulated militia Congress shall pass no law denying the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia implies a trained, responsible group which would answer for their actions, not BillyBob and Bubba going out to hunt.

I don't like guns, but that's not what the Second Amendment says, and what it does say doesn't mean what you think it does. It's anti-gun people who are putting a spin on the interpretation of the amendment; maybe for good reasons, but even if so, it should be actually amended and not just interpreted away.

The actual text of the amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The grammatical structure of that sentence is a justifying clause followed by an imperative. "X being Y, P shall not Q". Compare for example "New York being thousands of miles away, you shall not plan to drive there in one day". Put another way, "You shall not plan to drive to New York in one day, because it is thousands of miles away." Or rearranging the text of the second amendment similarly, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State".

Also, in the language of the time, "regulated" meant roughly "equipped". So "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well-equipped militia is necessary to the security of a free State".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:12 am UTC

It's still being framed as conditional on a reasoning that no longer applies.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby orthogon » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:29 am UTC

Justin Lardinois wrote:
orthogon wrote:Oh, another strange thing is that the US Supreme Court is conceptually interpreting the unchanging Constitution as it applies to particular new circumstances, whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).


I'm not a huge fan of appeals to original intent, and I think this issue is a good example of why. Gay people were severely marginalized in the 1790s, and I think the idea of same-sex marriage was probably unheard of and therefore most of the framers would not have had an opinion. Furthermore, I think the idea of the government being relevant at all when it comes to who can and can't marry would probably be foreign to them as well. Legal marriage is most important today for tax and inheritance purposes. There was no federal income tax until the Civil War, and I doubt most states required marriage licenses at the time the Constitution was written. When it came to inheritance matters back then, the concept of common law marriage would resolve any dispute that two people were married; simply being of opposite sexes and cohabitation for a long period of time used to be enough to be considered married in many states.

Both appeals to original intent and literal interpretation are potentially flawed: I should perhaps have stated that I had in mind the third option of not having a written constitution at all, as is famously the case in the UK. The legislature makes decisions based on what seems right as opposed to what is constitutional. This isn't perfect either, since on the one hand it can lead to laws influenced by the short-term political wind, and on the other can lead to endless debate over what the unwritten constitution has to say. But I think I prefer the idea that we can admit that we've changed our mind about something that our forefathers "held to be self evident". I bolded some words in your quote above; I personally find it somewhat hard to believe that the founding fathers, children of the Enlightenment though they were, would have taken same-sex marriage in their stride. Transported into 2015 and given time, exposure and argument I'm sure they'd have seen the light, but I don't think it would have been a no-brainer. This, to my mind, is something that western society really has changed its mind on: I assert this because it has happened before my very eyes (and ears) in my lifetime. And I think that the way in which we have changed our collective mind is admirable, something to be proud of, but also that it should be acknowledged as such.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Kit. » Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:14 am UTC

orthogon wrote:whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).

Doesn't their decision on gay marriage legally follow from their decision in Loving v. Virginia case?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:34 am UTC

Maybe, but I think it's more about perception and what that actually means about the document itself. In practice, I think "no written constitution" and "a constitution perpetually reinterpreted according to modern norms by even the most ardent literalists whether they like to admit it or not" perform very similar functions. One thing the US constitution definitely does, apart from any direct impact on the way individuals interact with the government, is to at least define the territories each governmental body commands within the government itself, but I think it's pretty clear that even there, there's a really crucial role for convention and what's fair play over just the words of the document itself. Given that the ways of interpreting a foundational text break down into two camps that aren't just coincidentally similar to the way those things happen in religious practice, but that largely the same actual people are taking the corresponding sides in both areas, I think that difference of perception is a pretty important thing. But the decisions people make are always going to be more similar than the ways they go about rationalizing them, too.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

sotanaht
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby sotanaht » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:45 pm UTC

Keyman wrote:
orthogon wrote:Oh, another strange thing is that the US Supreme Court is conceptually interpreting the unchanging Constitution as it applies to particular new circumstances, whereas in practice their decisions, for example the recent one on gay marriage, materially change it compared to what its authors had in mind (for the better, but changed nonetheless).

I've had this argument...actually it more that I've refereed this argument between one 'liberal' brother and another 'conservative' brother. The Constitution as a "living document" vs. preserving the "Original intent" of the signers. Especially as the biggest/loudest issues debated/disputed are often not about parts of the "original" Constitution but rather in interpretation of the Amendments, from the first ten (The "Bill of Rights") thru the subsequent seventeen. (Note - #27 was Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. Anyway....) In my personal view, the USSC has been interpreting the document to apply the rights enumerated in it to people who at the time of the writing, were not considered 'worthy' of those rights, i.e any non-male, non-white, non-landowning "gentleman". And there's a pendulum effect - often rights are restricted, to be later expanded, to be later... ect. Though when they extended the right of free speech to apply to corporations, both brothers agree they went too far.


While I generally don't like giving anything to corporations, especially anything that treats them as people, free speech in particular is one that I would probably support. At least, I have no concept of a reason why it shouldn't apply.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:21 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:While I generally don't like giving anything to corporations, especially anything that treats them as people, free speech in particular is one that I would probably support. At least, I have no concept of a reason why it shouldn't apply.


What does "speech" mean for a corporation, and how does it differ from speech by one or more actual people?

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby ps.02 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:13 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:It's still being framed as conditional on a reasoning that no longer applies.

You state this as a fact, but I think you know perfectly well that it's merely an opinion. Plenty of people argue that the existence of groups of armed citizens who do not directly answer to the government really is important for keeping it honest, i.e., securing a "free State".

Me, I wouldn't go that far. I hew to what I consider the more practical aspect that, in this country, I like the violent crime statistics much better in cities that do not implement serious gun control. (Unsurprising, right? Legally purchased guns aren't the ones used in most violent crimes, except suicides. So the gun violence argument really should be framed in terms of suicide prevention.)

ShadeTail
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby ShadeTail » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:01 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:While I generally don't like giving anything to corporations, especially anything that treats them as people, free speech in particular is one that I would probably support. At least, I have no concept of a reason why it shouldn't apply.

Rights, whether freedom of speech or anything else, shouldn't apply to businesses because *a business is not a person*.

This is a very dangerous issue that needs to be squashed, because it (deliberately) blurs the line between a business and the *actual people* who own and/or work for that business. The managers, employees, etc. have rights, but if the business does also, then it gives an excuse to trample the rights of the people who work there. "How dare you say we have to let our employees use their health insurance to get contraception? That's against the business' religious rights!" "How dare you say we have to pay worker's comp for on-the-job injuries? That's against the business' right against unlawful search and seizure!" And so on.

At the bottom line, this entire issue is a push by self-righteous jackholes to use "the business" as cover to force their own beliefs onto everyone else. When folks like, say, Mitt Romney or the Koch brothers argue about the "rights" of businesses or claim that corporations are people, they know exactly what they're doing.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Kit. » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:I hew to what I consider the more practical aspect that, in this country, I like the violent crime statistics much better in cities that do not implement serious gun control. (Unsurprising, right?

Indeed. I also like tornado statistics much better in those cities that don't implement tornado alerts.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1607: "Supreme Court"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:44 pm UTC

Ha!

ps.02 wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:It's still being framed as conditional on a reasoning that no longer applies.

You state this as a fact, but I think you know perfectly well that it's merely an opinion. Plenty of people argue that the existence of groups of armed citizens who do not directly answer to the government really is important for keeping it honest, i.e., securing a "free State".

No, it really is framed in a conditional, and that conditional really does refer to circumstances that do not at present exist.

What it's not, in fact, is an opinion with practical application.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: niauropsaka, speising and 36 guests