ON MERIT AND MISTAKES, KINDA
•
by olivermellors
It is painful to write this. Few have been as consistently steadfast in support of the Supreme Court, its Justices, its decisions, its practice, its value. Decisions I have thought technically or philosophically mistaken, I have reconciled. A practice which was ponderous I have suffered. I have pointed out idiosyncrasies which I thought corrosive while applauding strength and diligence. I have, for a very long time been a champion of a judicial branch of government, mindful of its role and the factors which have hobbled it.
Recently, congress abolished the constitutionally protected Court. True, there is some room for argument that the constitutional amendment did not in fact pass the final threshol😛
party president approval.
Also true, congress attempted to “continue” the court as a creature of its own. My view is that this was not successful but let us ignore the details of that argument for present purposes.
For our purposes, let us take for granted that a court may exist and that it has been in constant session for some time. Now comes time to make appointments to the court. You might think appointments would reflect merit. This is the painful part.
The president has appointed, subject to confirmation, three incumbents. During their term as Justices, the court did nothing. Literally. Nothing. There may be reasons for this. I wish I knew what they were since I have hope. My hope is a little flame. It needs fanning. It was almost put out when the Rolo trial was not completed; it suffered to see the Rolo matter and the Wes Lewis prosecutions sit undealt with; it came close to being snuffed out when Max Maher’s claim was ignored, when requests to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment and the congressional law languished; it went to ember when the president’s own imprecation was ignored.
If the Court exists and aims to be useful it must do stuff. It would be good to conserve hope that the appointees will do stuff. It would be good to know that the president gave this some thought before choosing his appointees. It would be heartening to have something concrete. To replace the silence. And the pain.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Steve.
At least He tried.
Steve did more than try. He ran a very able trial during Rolo #1, which came to naught in part because of heardheadness or the south Koreans.
I continue to think you are one of the most neccesary voices in this country and I am consistently glad to see your claim of leaving us many months ago was for naught. Now if only we could get you back into the big chair, assuming there is indeed a supreme court to run at the moment.
As Etemenanki said, having olivermellors in the 'big chair' would be a good thing. It may even be worthwhile for olivermellors to begin constructing his own big chair to sit on while we wait for the current one to be vacated.
glenn gould had a little creaky chair. If only we could play music like his: rapture.
Maybe it's time to invest our energies is something else?
Glenn Gould was amazing. Kinda like olivermellors.
Glenn Gould also had a bad habit of humming and hawwing during his recording sessions, which recording engineers would often fail to be able to edit out of his albums. If you listen closely to his pieces you can often hear it, but highly attenuated.
The courts has had no power and weight behind its word long since before I was born.
The Congress did a mistake, and it was partly my fault, I admit. What should have been done is change the amendment disposition in the Constitution to be less restrictive for Congress, but also remove all the reference to the erepublik's admin, and specify that it requires only the majority of the top 5 PP (or maybe even remove this clause).
The problem was that Congress wanted flexibility to be able to change the court. But, removing is Constitutional protection wasn't a good idea. I agree with you, Oliver.
je constate avec chagrin que vous n'êtes plus des nôtres. Néanmoins, vos commentaires sont accueillis avec respect et je vous en félicite. Effectivement, le poste de procureur semble encombrant, fessant trébucher ceux qui espèrent revendiquer leur droits. Je n'aime pas l'idée de consignes absolue quand au temps permit pour la plaidoirie ou le débat. Mais dit bien qui insiste que la justice ne procède pas au rythme de la tortue. Si une reforme a lieu, il s'agira d'une entraide entre joueurs de bonne volonté car, comme le chante Cano, on est Tous dans l'même bâteau. bons souhaits.
A third branch of government, entrusted with oversight, is vital to effective government. We have only to look at history to show that two branches of government, without any oversight or balance from a third, will inevitably result in unending turf disputes and power struggles. We need only look at our own history for the last 6 months to see that as the court grew weaker, and with no recourse or check, the executive and legislative branches fought with each other more and more often. How many frivolous impeachments, how many thefts we've seen have been rooted in the increasing divide between these two branches of government as they squabble to divide power in their own favour.
Goran Thrax
In the two branches defense Goran, there has only really been two big moments in that 6 months, and both of those were caused by idiotic Prime Ministers whom simply decided they were more important than the people whom elected them and stole everything. The rest of the time things were running fairly smoothly and stably.
Ete: the "turf war" idea merits consideration beyond the immediate cause of two catastrophic events. Consider for instance the present debate about whether the president should have access to proposed "guardian" accounts. Congress feels it has the right and obligation to ignore that part of the constitution which explicitly gives the president:
• The power to access and control any Governmental assets
In other words, it is overstepping. And it is doing so because there is no oversight of its activity and because there is a sense that it is the "saviour" organization which can insulate the nation from harm. With no recognition of the delicate balance between branches of government, the balancing mechanism is damaged.
Consider another example of "running smoothly" which really isn't. The office of Attorney General was significantly altered by a Congress which mistakenly believed that it was isolating the office from political control. In fact, previously, the office was immune from such control (though individual office holders may not have lived up to their duty of independence). The amendments passed by Congress, well intentioned but invading the executive prerogative, have led to an office of Attorney General which is disfunctional and unworkable. There are many similar examples, each illustrating the tug of war between executive and legislative (the judiciary having been rendered largely impotent).
Oh, and the business of the thefts themselves? When, as a community, we poo-poo as "role players" the very people who denounce theft, well.... theft doesn't seem so unpalatable anymore. I think it was Dicey who observe😛 "we hang people for murder because it is wrong. Why is murder wrong? Because we hang people for it" . Circular and persuasive.
I am going to reflect on your comment a bit more though, as there is merit in it.