Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM

Just a warning for others on “the Death of Common Sense,” the author starts with a great premise, provides great examples, then comes to the most mind-staggeringly wrong (or at least sideways) conclusion possible – give bureaucrats more power.

Not in so many words, of course, but the primary focus of the conclusion is on examples of how public sector officials could make better decisions with less restrictive rules. Not, say, ya know, getting out of the way or anything.

The tragedy of a communitarian trying to figure out why bureaucracy is stifling freedom.

My contempt for Democracy is based upon the level of intelligence to be found among the majority of people. I do not wish to be ruled by those who can barely sign their own name, let alone run their own lives.

And you wish to be ruled by lawyers? Ye Gods! I’l take those people who cannot sign their own name, thanks.

If said document were under the purview and protection of a select group, devoid of politics, this would not happen.

You’ll be telling me you believe in the tooth fairy next. Where do you propose to find this “select group, devoid of politics”? In the law schools?

I repeat, I’d sooner pick the Court at random from the ranks of plumbers and electricians. They usually have at least one foot in the the real world.

The Law is the biggest tyrant of all

There is no freedom without law. Seemingly paradoxical, but true.

My suggestion that appointment to the Supreme Court be taken out of the hands of “changeable” politicians is an attempt to create a more stable system of law

The people you want to hand it over to are far more radical and dangerous than “the People”. It was the sort of people you want to give more power to who gave us Roe and this current ruling. The legal profession are the problem, not the solution.

Spend some time on the law blogs and see how those people think. It’s sobering, even frightening. Read “Bench Memos” at National Review.

Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM

Thank you very much for the links. I particularly like the sound of No:3. I shall peruse them as soon as I am free.

True, people should be involved, but few bother to venture beyond the usual sound-bytes, slogans, and slurs.

“The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom
“The Death of Satan” by Andrew Delblanco
“The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America“

Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Your suggestion is sound, in theory, but I still have a problem with the actualities of asking “The People” to be more involved at a local level. True, people should be involved, but few bother to venture beyond the usual sound-bytes, slogans, and slurs. I get the impression that, at an ever increasing rate, people are becoming less and less interested in stability, and more desirous of instant fixes that do not take into consideration the longer term effects.

Thinking people look for stability in life, and a system that allows for that must include a stable legal code.

My suggestion that appointment to the Supreme Court be taken out of the hands of “changeable” politicians is an attempt to create a more stable system of law which, although made for the lawless, should be a comfort to the lawful, rather than a tribulation.
OldEnglish on June 15, 2008 at 9:18 PM

So you’re implying that others from the legal profession should choose the supreme court judges?
I have, perhaps, a more feasible solution. Since the judges are recommended for appointment by the POTUS, and approved by Congress, why not focus more on Congressional elections? The obvious ineptness of the Senate in legal matters during the Alito and Roberts’ hearings was self-evident in their lack of intelligent questions. As a response, I’d say we should repeal the 17th Amendment, hence giving the States control of their own Senators again. This would require voters pay more attention to local and state politics, which gets pushed to the wayside very quickly. This would promote more accountability, hence making our system work and prevent corruption and incompetence. Under the old system, if a Senator acted out of line with his constituents, then the people could put pressure on their State Legislators, who would then pressure the Senator with threats of recalling him.

Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Your point about the problem lying with the people backs up my assertion that “the basics” should not be interfered by “the people”, but should remain sacrosanct. The form of government implemented in the US is probably the best on this planet, but, it is constantly being eroded by its own people moving more and more to the left in a series of changes to the moral basics of life.

My suggestion that appointment to the Supreme Court be taken out of the hands of “changeable” politicians is an attempt to create a more stable system of law which, although made for the lawless, should be a comfort to the lawful, rather than a tribulation.

In the end, The Law is the biggest tyrant of all, since it governs us all.
OldEnglish on June 15, 2008 at 7:47 PM

In a sense, you sound like a New Testament theologian. The law cannot cover everything, but legislators try to accomplish this by enacting more laws, which removes liberty from the many to rein in the few, hence the problem with legalism. Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I’d argue that it’s not our Constitution that is the problem, but rather the American people. I agree with the Scottish political thinker, Andrew Fletcher, who said, “Give me the making of the songs of a nation, and I care not who writes its laws.” Look at our culture, our music, our values, and you’ll see who we are as a people. If people were perfect, we’d need no law. With that in mind, I’d challenge you to show me a better system of government than our own.

flenser on June 15, 2008 at 4:11 PM

My contempt for Democracy is based upon the level of intelligence to be found among the majority of people. I do not wish to be ruled by those who can barely sign their own name, let alone run their own lives.

As for the Supreme Court, since it seems that we must have one, I would prefer consistency of purpose. Politics seeks to install an ideology that is in tune with a particular Party’s agenda, even if it means changing/trashing the foundation document in order to achieve this. If said document were under the purview and protection of a select group, devoid of politics, this would not happen. In this case, the document would be the tyrant, not the group.

In the end, The Law is the biggest tyrant of all, since it governs us all.

No. None at all. Will never happen though – not while pandering to the lowest common denominator (Democracy).

The Founders created a democratic Republic in which all power was vested in “the People”. So your contempt for democracy does you no credit. The alternative to rule by the many is rule by the few, aka tyranny. America today suffers from many ills. A surfit of democracy is not one of them.

It’s a mystery to me how you can acknowledge that the court wields unaccountable power, and conclude that the solution is not less unaccountable power, but more of it.

I don’t like being ruled by the judges our legislatures give us. I’d like even less being ruled by the judges the ABA would give us.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. According to the courts decision, the detainees could not be denied the constitutional right of habeas corpus. Justi…

“Shoot to kill, no prisoners!!!”

fred5678 on June 15, 2008 at 2:38 AM

See previous comments.

Any objection to that?

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM

No. None at all. Will never happen though – not while pandering to the lowest common denominator (Democracy).

“Shoot to kill, no prisoners!!!”

just curious, do you think your associates degree from a local junior college is the same as a Yale MBA??

right4life on June 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM

G. W. has an MBA from Harvard. Not too shabby.
And flew (accident free) a supersonic interceptor that had a high accident rate.

McCain had 5 accidents – only 2 his fault.

Gore flunked out of two different graduate schools.

G. W. may have trouble speaking, but not flying nor graduating.

Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 12:32 AM

I share your passion. After 9/11 I prayed over what God wanted me to do, how could I serve Him in this fight? He sent me (of all places) to law school…you don’t know me, so you don’t know how funny it is that this is how it’s working out, and how He cleared every obstacle once I took a step of faith outside my comfort zone in obedience. Anyway, my point is (rambling here I know…) that He is raising up His own army, and we all must do our part. Thank you for being willing to be sent.

My point being that, since we have a tyranny anyway, why not one formed by the Legal Profession, rather than one by partisan politics.

Or we could do away with tyranny altogether and try having the sort of system the people who wrote the Constitution envisaged. Any objection to that?

Theregoestheneighborhood:

Show me where the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court…

We’ve been throught that already. Read the thread.

I did read the thread. You never showed where the Constitution authorized the Supreme Court to be the interpreter of the Constitution.

Because it’s not there.

You did do a length cut-and-paste of the history of judicial review, but once again, the entire history of judicial review that you yourself posted didn’t show where it was authorized by the Constitution.

Don’t bother saying, “Read the thread,” as if you had answered the question previously.

There is no check or balance to constrain them

Yes there is. It is called amendments. Write an amendment that reverses this decision and go out there and get the votes to get it passed.
….
dave742 on June 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM

The Supreme Court just ignored the Constitutional provisions allowing Congress to restrict their jurisdiction. They can just as easily interpret any Constitutional Amendment as conflicting with other Constitutional provisions and refuse to honor it.

Think it wouldn’t happen?

When McCain Feingold restricted political speech contrary to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ignored the First Amendment in the interests of avoiding the appearance of corruption in politics
When the Florida Supreme Court was confronted with a Florida Constitutional Amendment overwhelmingly approved by popular vote and according to the valid amendment process in Florida, they overturned the law on the basis that the people who voted for it didn’t really understand what they were voting for. Before Friday, I would have thought the U.S. Supreme Court was above that sort of thing, but clearly they are not.

Judicial review as used by the Supreme Court allows them to overturn any law Congress makes. It allows them to stick their nose into military matters and the treatment of enemy combatants, and declare they must have a trial as if they were simply accused of a crime. It allows them to ignore the fact that only the President has jurisdiction over over the military.

Or is separation of powers only to be desired when the Supreme Court is the one restricting the power of the other two branches of government?

(They are currently chosen by “legal” means. I think you meant something different.)

flenser on June 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

You’re right. In my original post I suggested appointment by their peers. Sorry for the confusion. My point being that, since we have a tyranny anyway, why not one formed by the Legal Profession, rather than one by partisan politics.

Can’t be any worse, can it?