tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5032052269830845341..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Judicial absolutismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31050961925909019932015-09-22T12:23:18.622-04:002015-09-22T12:23:18.622-04:00Steve, // That's judges doing what they are su...Steve, // That's judges doing what they are supposed to do.//<br /><br />Yes, but.<br /><br />That seems to be the rub here? What remedy does the State have when in their view the judicial precedent ruling is not valid especially when it is "bad law"?<br /><br /><br />In the video I mentioned earlier that was posted on CSpan [Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer talks about his book, The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities, at the National Constitution Center's annual celebration of Constitution Day] Justice Breyer tells about being visited by a Supreme Court Justice from Ghana. She asks him how do they get the people to follow them? Ghana is a former British colony and gained her independence from Great Britain in 1957. Ghana after gaining their independence from them began setting up a judiciary so they could exist in the 20th century and render legal decisions for internally cultural, national and international societal disputes. The complexity is enormous for them seeing there are "kings" and "kingdoms" that currently exist and that have traditions and cultural rules that at times conflict with this new judiciary. Justice Breyer said it hasn't been easy over the last 2 centuries and I supposed keyed in on that and gave the two examples I cited, Brown v. Board and the subsequent one. I'm not familiar with it. I suppose it was an argument before the Court against the State of Arkansas' authority exercised to shut down the public school system as their State remedy to circumvent being "Federally" forced to integrate Black society into the white man school system and culture prevalent in the South. As you know the Executive exercised her authority in concurrence with the Judiciary and sent the 101st. to forcefully integrate against the will of white majority. He then goes into his own personal dynamic between himself and Justice Scalia, who wants the Court to rule contextually objectively while he believes some cases brought before the Court in the evolving cultures within the United States should be judged subjectively during the Court's process of adjudicating. It is this dynamic that leads to bad law at times and judicial supremacy. It seems to me that this is what TF is arguing, I presume: // In any event, raising the question of judicial supremacy requires conceding the point of my original article, namely that Obergefell is law.//<br /><br />For me, Obergefell is bad law and by it opened wide another door to even more publicly acceptable immorality becoming legal in time to come unless God intervenes and convicts "we the people", judges, legislatures and the Executive so we regain some Biblically moral character? If not, I suppose the United States will suffer under God's harshness and wrath. What that will feel like or look like is for the Prophets among us to tell. One way or the other God is Sovereign and as Scripture reveals:::><br /><br />Psa 33:10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. <br />Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. <br />Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! <br />Psa 33:13 The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; <br />Psa 33:14 from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, <br />Psa 33:15 he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds. <br />Psa 33:16 The king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. <br />Psa 33:17 The war horse is a false hope for salvation, and by its great might it cannot rescue. <br />Psa 33:18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, <br />Psa 33:19 that he may deliver their soul from death and keep them alive in famine. <br /><br />michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35915253885535564652015-09-21T22:57:29.069-04:002015-09-21T22:57:29.069-04:00Seems to me that Brown v. Board was a valid applic...Seems to me that Brown v. Board was a valid application of the 14th amendment. A primary purpose of the 14th amendment was to strike down "black codes." Jim Crow was another rearguard maneuver to reinstate "black codes." An attempt to circumvent the 14th amendment. I think Jim Crow was contrary to the Civil War amendments. <br /><br />What made that judicial ruling legitimate wasn't naked judicial authority, but a valid application or extension of Constitutional law. That's judges doing what they are supposed to do.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13856495831483253742015-09-21T20:35:32.401-04:002015-09-21T20:35:32.401-04:00Turretinfan: // "... Even if judicial precede...Turretinfan: // "... Even if judicial precedent can be overruled other ways, it's still law. You need to start thinking more clearly about this."//<br /><br />For me that's an interestingly strong, even an extremely strong sentence in this debate between you and Steve.<br /><br />I don't know if either of you, Steve or TF, have watched Justice Breyer's comments recently put up on CSpan, last Thursday, the 17th?<br /><br />In going over some of the processes of adjudications he brought out an interesting historical bit on two cases. The short side of it was the "precedence" setting issue wasn't so much as the judicial precedent set in Brown v. the Board of Education but the actions of the Governor of Arkansas and the wide open issue of the collective response of the people complying and not complying with the judicial ruling against segregation. In the first instance after the ruling in 1954 it took three years before the President sent in the 101st Airborne, about 1,000 men, to forcefully integrate the black children into the education system. The State was against integrating and was prepared to resist the order or ruling of the Supreme Court. They did. The Governor pitted the State police against the Armed Forces of the United States.The second instance occurred shortly thereafter when I believe Justice Breyer said a new state Board of people came into power and within the State responded in rebellion against the Supreme Court's decision that they are to integrate. What did the State do this time? They shut down the public schools! One remedy doesn't nullify the primary remedy but it sure put a major stumbling block in the way of it's enforcement.<br /><br />It seems the pendulum is swinging back towards Judicial supremacy again seeing in my State of California the will of the people was overturned by one Federal Judge and the lack of enforcement by the State Attorney General in the case of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 still stands and exists but it is no longer being enforced. This time it's the majority being disregarded. Back then it was the Black minority being disregarded.<br /><br /><br /><br />I would also note as I did in another thread that in my county there currently is a law on the books against adultery. Adultery is against the law yet the last time anyone was ever arrested for this crime, not to mention the moral violation of God's nature inherent in humans, was 1970. I knew and worked with the police officer who made the arrest. I was also best friends with the District Attorney's son, who refused to prosecute the arrest.<br /><br />It still is law. Brown v. Board of Education was law but it took a lot of acts of both non-violence and violence before the majority of the citizens of the United States started conforming to it years later.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69464152097202552532015-09-21T20:28:35.559-04:002015-09-21T20:28:35.559-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92112543009398211822015-09-21T18:11:04.916-04:002015-09-21T18:11:04.916-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69698222590257550422015-09-21T16:44:06.012-04:002015-09-21T16:44:06.012-04:00"That would be the only remedy under the assu..."That would be the only remedy under the assumption that judicial supremacy is true, which begs the question." It doesn't beg the question of the article. You're misusing the expression "beg the question." And see my point two about the need to concede the point of my original article if you want to debate judicial supremacy.<br /><br />"That's a viciously circular claim. It only follows on the tendentious assumption that judicial supremacy is true, therefore Obergefell must be law. "<br /><br />That's simply not true. Even if judicial precedent can be overruled other ways, it's still law. You need to start thinking more clearly about this.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36130633800523200182015-09-21T16:22:55.575-04:002015-09-21T16:22:55.575-04:00"You call it 'ducking the issue of judici..."You call it 'ducking the issue of judicial supremacy,' but since that wasn't the point of my original article, it would be more accurate to say I don't get distracted by the red herring of judicial supremacy."<br /><br />It's hardly a red herring when you conclude your original article by claiming the only legal recourse is to impeachment or amending the Constitution. That would be the only remedy under the assumption that judicial supremacy is true, which begs the question.<br /><br />"In any event, raising the question of judicial supremacy requires conceding the point of my original article, namely that Obergefell is law."<br /><br />That's a viciously circular claim. It only follows on the tendentious assumption that judicial supremacy is true, therefore Obergefell must be law. But to deny judicial supremacy hardly concedes your argument. Rather, that denies a key premise of your argument. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71292345305022989752015-09-21T15:58:57.843-04:002015-09-21T15:58:57.843-04:00You call it "ducking the issue of judicial su...You call it "ducking the issue of judicial supremacy," but since that wasn't the point of my original article, it would be more accurate to say I don't get distracted by the red herring of judicial supremacy. In any event, raising the question of judicial supremacy requires conceding the point of my original article, namely that Obergefell is law.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com