FWIS3

Okay. I really, really need an American to explain to me why your stupid legal system is so fucked up. For real. I don't understand it.

HOW THE HELL DOES THE COURT MAKE THIS RULING?

I ask this sincerely, as someone with an actual friggin' law degree. I do not understand why your courts are a bullshit factory. It's like you started with a bad idea in the 1700s, and then just kept piling worse ideas on top of it, until we end up with corporations that have religious beliefs.

Court, 1801: "Well, because of that bad idea the Founders had, we need to make this bad decision."

Court, 1872: "Well, because of that bad decision the court made in 1801, we need to make this bad decision."

Court, 1929: "Well, because of that bad decision the court made in 1872, we need to make this bad decision."

Court, 1983: "Well, because of that bad decision the court made in 1829, we need to make this bad decision."

Court, 2014: "Well, because of that bad decision the court made in 1983, corporations are capable of holding religious beliefs and discriminating against employees on those grounds."

That's how it's got to have gone. "Oh, our hands are tied. That's how it is." Insane. Incomprehensible. Madness.

WHY NOT JUST RECOGNIZE THE PAST DECISION WAS BAD, AND MAKE A GOOD DECISION?

Oh, right. Because the CONSTITUTION is holy writ. It means exactly what it meant when Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson carried the stone tablets down from high atop Mount Continental Congress and cried "FREEDOM!" loud enough to crack the Liberty Bell.

This despite the fact that Originalism is an incoherent legal philosophy that is literally impossible to actually apply to reality.

But never mind that! Laws are immutable and unchanging and are, despite evidence to the contrary, actually able to be those things! Bad decisions in the past? Unchangeable! Why, to change them would be to admit that laws can change! And that society changes, too. And that, maybe, Saint James of Madison was wrong about something! So we're stuck with the bad decisions, and are forced to make even worse decisions based on them because the bad decisions necessarily imply those worse decisions.

Onward into the future, while refusing to ever change anything anyone has ever done! Even when the entire rest of the world rejects our legal philosophy as childish nonsense! America! Yay!

...seriously, your fucking court needs to be serious for once. They need to stop noodling around with their idiotic ways of doing things, and grow the hell up. The SCOTUS is a laughingstock in non-US legal circles. I have literally heard law professors laugh derisively at Originalism. No one outside the US sees it as anything but outdated, useless nonsense.

Get with it.

I'm thinking you are starting to see why the two of us disagreed so much a few years back on matters of law.

Not really, no. I don't know what you're referring to.

Edit:

I seem to remember you had some issues with the notion of precedent. I still have no issues with it. What I'm taking issue with, here, is the inflexible interpretation of the law that is so popular in the US, and which leads to absurd results. That's not the fault of precedent; that's the fault of a crappy legal philosophy.

My issues stemmed from law being heavily biased towards those that have money and power.
This is another example of that.
We also disagreed on the constitution but you changed your mind on that a long time ago.
I disagreed on precedents but you changed my mind on that.
Now we seem to agree on almost everything.

I see. In that case, yes, I think we do agree in broad terms. At least when it comes to the US. Thinks are way out of whack in the Land of the Free.

For instance, a Gallup poll just came out which shows Americans have a 30% confidence rating in the Supreme Court. Can't imagine why that is.

The Canadian number, by contrast, is 74% (combining the "Great deal of trust" and "Some trust" categories).

This is what happens when you have an apolitical court. It makes decisions based on the actual law rather than on politics. It can be a no-fucking-around grown up court that doesn't pick any old legal theory off the ground and shove it up its nose.

Turns out an independent judiciary actually is a good thing, actually does produce good results, and actually does things that the populace wants it to do.

Funny thing, that.

I see this as a direct result of encouraging the courts to engage in activism. We wanted them to change the law of the land because we didn't like what the majority wanted. So they did. Now we are not happy because suddenly they are siding with a minority we don't agree with. Well sunshine crew....guess what.

Bullcrap. "Activism" (something that I dispute actually exists) is only a problem when your court is political. When it's apolitical, there is no activism - there's just the proper interpretation and application of the law. Even if the change made is significant, no one accuses the court of "activism," because that's unthinkable - they have no agenda other than doing their jobs and applying the law. But because your Supreme Court is full of partisan appointees, they act like children. They pervert the proper interpretation and application of the law for political ends. It's a serious and unjust distortion of how actual, grown-up legal systems are supposed to (and do, in the rest of the developed world) work. Courts are not places for politics; the Supreme Court is not an additional House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court needs to get its fucking act together, and start taking things seriously. Because right now, they're just durdling around, playing at being judges. It's pathetic. Laughable.

Edit: Honestly, the most bewildering thing to me is how Americans are taking this decision. It's all "Those bastard conservative justices won! Their political views are the law, now. But we'll win next time!" That's... that's wrong. The whole attitude is wrong. It's not about some political fight. It's not like an election, or passing a bill. That's not what a court is for. Let me tell you how it goes up here. This is what people say: "Oh, the court has decided X. That's the law. Guess that's always been the law. I do/don't like it. I wonder what the politicians will say about this ruling?"

There's a difference. It isn't "We won/lost!" it's "Oh, that's what the law says has to happen in this case." Don't like the ruling? Get the law changed in Parliament. But it has nothing to do with the court, which just tells you what the law currently is. There's just no politics to it.

I literally do not understand what the hell you Americans are even doing here. Why are court decisions political? Why are courts political arenas? It makes no sense.

1. They are political because the Justices are political appointees for LIFE. Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan, Thomas was appointed by GHW Bush, Roberts and Alito were appointed by GW Bush (these are all the conservatives and all the males on the bench... guess who wrote the opinion in the Hobby Lobby case??). The Liberals are - Bader=Ginsberg, Beyer(Clinton), Sotomayor and Kagan (Obama) - with Beyer being the only male.
2. To get a law changed you have to have a working government... have you seen what our government currently looks like?? At the moment - Hugo Chavez has better polling numbers than our Congress.... and Chavez is dead...
3. The decisions that the court has been making are so narrow that one has to wonder if they are looking at the big picture.

They are looking at the big dollar.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Bullcrap. "Activism" (something that I dispute actually exists) is only a problem when your court is political. When it's apolitical, there is no activism - there's just the proper interpretation and application of the law. Even if the change made is significant, no one accuses the court of "activism," because that's unthinkable - they have no agenda other than doing their jobs and applying the law. But because your Supreme Court is full of partisan appointees, they act like children. They pervert the proper interpretation and application of the law for political ends. It's a serious and unjust distortion of how actual, grown-up legal systems are supposed to (and do, in the rest of the developed world) work. Courts are not places for politics; the Supreme Court is not an additional House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court needs to get its fucking act together, and start taking things seriously. Because right now, they're just durdling around, playing at being judges. It's pathetic. Laughable.

Edit: Honestly, the most bewildering thing to me is how Americans are taking this decision. It's all "Those bastard conservative justices won! Their political views are the law, now. But we'll win next time!" That's... that's wrong. The whole attitude is wrong. It's not about some political fight. It's not like an election, or passing a bill. That's not what a court is for. Let me tell you how it goes up here. This is what people say: "Oh, the court has decided X. That's the law. Guess that's always been the law. I do/don't like it. I wonder what the politicians will say about this ruling?"

There's a difference. It isn't "We won/lost!" it's "Oh, that's what the law says has to happen in this case." Don't like the ruling? Get the law changed in Parliament. But it has nothing to do with the court, which just tells you what the law currently is. There's just no politics to it.

I literally do not understand what the hell you Americans are even doing here. Why are court decisions political? Why are courts political arenas? It makes no sense.

ah, yes. just change the law. We did that. But, some people didn't like that. So, they went to court. Isn't that what you do when you believe a law is unjust or infringes on peoples rights? Just because we don't like the outcome doesn't mean the system isn't working as intended. Whether you want to call it activism or you think it's politically motivated it's the same outcome.

You know it's strange- this ruling has disturbed me enough that I'm avoiding reading much about it or getting pissed off about it. Last time this happened for me personally was the eminent domain case in 2005, when they ruled private property can be given over forcibly to private development. (Where, it should be pointed out as a quick aside, the land taken and razed is still undeveloped.)

The only silver lining I can really see in this is I highly suspect because it's painted as a "Republican win" (sorry TSC, but you're right on the politics around it) it's going to remind people to vote in November. I mean it's very hard for a party to champion a ruling about contraception without seeming anti-women, especially when 90% of the country finds it morally acceptable.

I'm also surprised no one has as yet announced stepping down of the justices, though I guess it may still happen this week. Ginsberg is 81 years old, and Scalia is a spring chicken in comparison at 78... though I'm certain he's waiting to 2016 so he can potentially retire when he agrees more with the president in office.

Rommie wrote:I'm also surprised no one has as yet announced stepping down of the justices, though I guess it may still happen this week. Ginsberg is 81 years old, and Scalia is a spring chicken in comparison at 78... though I'm certain he's waiting to 2016 so he can potentially retire when he agrees more with the president in office.

What makes you think that a Republican is going to be elected President?? Have you looked at the Republican field??

brite wrote:

Rommie wrote:I'm also surprised no one has as yet announced stepping down of the justices, though I guess it may still happen this week. Ginsberg is 81 years old, and Scalia is a spring chicken in comparison at 78... though I'm certain he's waiting to 2016 so he can potentially retire when he agrees more with the president in office.

What makes you think that a Republican is going to be elected President?? Have you looked at the Republican field??

Hah, sorry if that wasn't clear, but my point was more there might be one- stranger things have happened in American politics. I sincerely doubt Scalia will retire while Obama is still in office if he can possibly help it for this reason.

True... and Bader-Ginsberg will not step down while Obama is still POTUS... and tilt the bench. SO... What we have here is a bench that is as balanced as we can get it. On the upside... with most of the Republican contenders indicted (or at least under investigation for various things...) the only viable candidates are JEB Bush and Mitt Romney... umm... yeah...

brite wrote:True... and Bader-Ginsberg will not step down while Obama is still POTUS... and tilt the bench. SO... What we have here is a bench that is as balanced as we can get it.

This is what almost every non American can't even begin to fathom.
The highest judges in the land are basically puppets to their political party.
They are meant to be totally and utterly non political if they are to be impartial as judges.
Clearly they are not.

My argument has always been that if they are pawns to politics then how can we expect all the lower courts not to be.
Combine that with the fact that campaign funds almost always decide who is in power and that the people in power almost always side with those with the money it doesn't really take much to understand why the legal system here is the way it is.

Technically the justices can and should be impeached the moment that they show political bias. But that hasn't happened since the late 1800's...

brite wrote:1. They are political because the Justices are political appointees for LIFE. Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan, Thomas was appointed by GHW Bush, Roberts and Alito were appointed by GW Bush (these are all the conservatives and all the males on the bench... guess who wrote the opinion in the Hobby Lobby case??). The Liberals are - Bader=Ginsberg, Beyer(Clinton), Sotomayor and Kagan (Obama) - with Beyer being the only male.

Well, no. The Canadian Supreme Court is almost exactly the same in this regard, and yet we have an apolitical court. Hell, the current prime minister has appointed six of the nine sitting justices. He has, in fact, tried very hard to politicize the court. No dice. It hasn't worked. They keep throwing apolitical decisions back in his face. Decisions that he doesn't like. Despite the fact that he appointed them. And neither the legal community nor political pundits talk about "conservative" justices or "liberal" justices. It's unthinkable - the court rules on the law, impartially and apolitically. Period.

Even though we have a very similar court appointment process to the US (with much less in the way of oversight, in fact - the PM can essentially do what he wants) and justices sit for decades, we have an apolitical court. So what you're saying can't be right. We do the same thing with different results.

The problem isn't the president appointing justices for life. The problem is the political/legal culture in the US. It's entirely broken. The way that you think about how the Supreme Court works is irreparably busted.

SciFiFisher wrote:ah, yes. just change the law. We did that. But, some people didn't like that. So, they went to court. Isn't that what you do when you believe a law is unjust or infringes on peoples rights? Just because we don't like the outcome doesn't mean the system isn't working as intended. Whether you want to call it activism or you think it's politically motivated it's the same outcome.

You are exhibiting precisely the broken attitude towards the legal system that I'm taking issue with.

Rommie wrote:You know it's strange- this ruling has disturbed me enough that I'm avoiding reading much about it or getting pissed off about it.

Hey, I'll be angry for you. It's fucked up. It's pretty much all the problems I have with US politics all rolled into one big ball. It makes me want to grab the country and give it a good shake. The mind boggles... it's like... do you even know what you're doing at this point? What the hell?!

FZR1KG wrote:

brite wrote:True... and Bader-Ginsberg will not step down while Obama is still POTUS... and tilt the bench. SO... What we have here is a bench that is as balanced as we can get it.

This is what almost every non American can't even begin to fathom.

Yes. Exactly right. It literally makes no sense. It's as bizarre as if an entire country thought that their Supreme Court was really for deciding who wins the World Series. And they expected the justices to rule based on who their favourite team was, rather than on the rules of the game. It's so far removed from actual reality that it's a non sequitur. The court is for the impartial application of the law. Not baseball! Can't you see that?

Imagine my exasperation...

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT POLITICS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE COURT?!? THOSE THINGS ARE ENTIRELY UNRELATED!!!

Ugh. Guys. For the sake of my sanity, please sort your shit out.

The highest judges in the land are basically puppets to their political party.
They are meant to be totally and utterly non political if they are to be impartial as judges.
Clearly they are not.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

My argument has always been that if they are pawns to politics then how can we expect all the lower courts not to be.
Combine that with the fact that campaign funds almost always decide who is in power and that the people in power almost always side with those with the money it doesn't really take much to understand why the legal system here is the way it is.

Plus, you know, a lot of lower court judges are fucking elected in the US. I'm sure that keeps politics out of things. Jesus. The whole thing is a farce.

Rommie wrote:The only silver lining I can really see in this is I highly suspect because it's painted as a "Republican win" (sorry TSC, but you're right on the politics around it) it's going to remind people to vote in November. I mean it's very hard for a party to champion a ruling about contraception without seeming anti-women, especially when 90% of the country finds it morally acceptable.

They're not framing it as ruling against contraception. They're framing it as ruling against abortion.

However, the very methods that Hobby Lobby claims they find morally objectionable are the very methods they have invested money into through their retirement plan.

Basically, if it costs them money (insurance), they're against it for religious reasons, but if it makes them money, than that's okay.

Where's Yosh?
I need to have a chat about him making this into a topic that shows Americans can't let there be any form of gun regulation.
W.T.F.

Yo, Yosh.
Git yr ass here.

Except none of the birth control methods that they object to are abortifacants....
A little biology goes a long way....

That's what happens when you have 75 Million idiots in the same country, big market to cater to by the other 225 Million

Or if you prefer:

Were it not for this torpid ductility, this self-abandonment to what Correa called “the special providence over the United States and little children,” the accidents of a young government, like the accidents of a young child, would be fearfully accumulated.

Attributed to Abbé Correa (José Correia da Serra) in Wharton, Francis (1849). State trials of the United States during the administrations of Washington and Adams. Philadelphia: Carey and Hart. p. 4.


I guess the US lives in perennial revolution.......

The times they are a changing.
Companies are people.
If they are people thus they now can hold religious views.
If they fuckup, they can be punished.
So by that reckoning, if a company kills someone through industrial accident the CEO's should be charged with murder or manslaughter which ever is fitting. Murder if they knew it could lead to death I imagine. That means, at least in Texas, we should now be able to execute CEO's for the sins of the company. lol

brite wrote:Except none of the birth control methods that they object to are abortifacants....
A little biology goes a long way....

WTF is an abortifacant?

SciFi Chick wrote:

brite wrote:Except none of the birth control methods that they object to are abortifacants....
A little biology goes a long way....

WTF is an abortifacant?

An abortifacient is a drug that induces an abortion.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:

brite wrote:Except none of the birth control methods that they object to are abortifacants....
A little biology goes a long way....

WTF is an abortifacant?

An abortifacient is a drug that induces an abortion.

Well, we're splitting hairs here in any case. The morning after pill is considered an abortion by lots of religious people. And you can claim that it's not until you're blue in the face. After you're done, have a chat with them about evolution and genocide, and see how far you get.