Swiss Voters Ban Face Coverings

[Koldo]

Is your goal just to poke holes in what I'm saying? Or do you have some other alternative you're proposing? Do you think we'd be better off without Constitutions? It's like you're making your comments in a completely decontextualized historical vacuum.

I have said: "I propose that every single significant choice be left to popular vote, rather than leaving it up to the judges to decide. Because that's what often happens.".

I see no point in constitutions, in general.

The whole reason we have constitutional governments is specifically to prevent kings and other government leaders from doing "whatever they want." Constitutions put constraints on their power dictating what they may or may not do. And it sort of spits in the face of the entire history of Western jurisprudence and people in legal professions who spend their entire lives dedicated to how to properly interpret and enact law to make this sort of facile claim that leaders will just interpret constitutions "however they want." That just flies in the face of what actually happens when Constitutions are written and why people argue so vociferously about what they say. Here in the US, if you file a lawsuit premised on some completely random, off-the-wall interpretation of the Constitution that has no connection to precedent or what the text actually says, you will be laughed out of the room and your case quickly dismissed.

Constitutions do not prevent kings and other people in power to do whatever they want!

All that they have to do is to claim that their own interpretation of the constitution is the correct one. You only need a few given powerful people to agree and that is it. Just to exemplify: The SCOTUS can freely decide that abortions are to banned whenever it wants.

if you think modern constitutional governments preserve power in the hands of a few, do some research on what life was life in a pre-Magna Carta monarchy. Regular citizens in Western democracies indisputably are freer and have greater influence over what their governments do than they were before. The reason for this is because of democratic reforms in government such as Constitutions that enshrine human rights and limits on government in law.

I am not saying ordinary citizens don't have more influence than they used to.

 

[Left Coast]

Constitutions do not prevent kings and other people in power to do whatever they want!

Yes. They literally do. There's a reason we have a new President every 4-8 years in my country and Presidents don't just stay in power for life like kings and then pass power on to their sons. It's because we have a Constitution that limits how long they are allowed to stay in office and require them to be elected.

All that they have to do is to claim that their own interpretation of the constitution is the correct one. You only need a few given powerful people to agree and that is it.

No, I'm sorry, that is just flat wrong, and rather silly. To get the "few powerful people" you're talking about to actually agree to such things. You have to actually make an argument connected to what the text says or precedent of past decisions. And then go through the legal process of enacting said interpretation. All of which is subject to the democratic checks and balances of modern democratic systems.

Just to exemplify: The SCOTUS can freely decide that abortions are to banned whenever it wants.

Actually no...it cannot. First, a relevant case has to be brought before the SCOTUS, which requires the case to have gone through multiple rounds of lower courts ruling on the case - usually years in the making. Then a certain number of SCOTUS Justices have to agree to even hear the case at all. Then a majority of the Justices have to agree to the merits of the case when it is presented. And SCOTUS since Roe has consistently upheld the right of women to have abortions. Even conservative majority Courts have done so. So again, your argument is completely ahistorical and based on some abstract what-if that absurdly over-simplifies what actually happens in the world.

And even if at some future point the SCOTUS did outlaw abortion - what would that prove? That we should have no SCOTUS? Do you think having no constitution means having no laws? We would still have a legal system in this country and we would still need a highest court to make final legal rulings.

I am not saying ordinary citizens don't have more influence than they used to.

Good, then we agree that Constitutions have had a net positive effect.

 

[Koldo]

Yes. They literally do. There's a reason we have a new President every 4-8 years in my country and Presidents don't just stay in power for life like kings and then pass power on to their sons. It's because we have a Constitution that limits how long they are allowed to stay in office and require them to be elected.

No. It is not because of the constitution. It is because the other people in power will enforce the constitution as they interpret it.

No, I'm sorry, that is just flat wrong, and rather silly. To get the "few powerful people" you're talking about to actually agree to such things. You have to actually make an argument connected to what the text says or precedent of past decisions. And then go through the legal process of enacting said interpretation. All of which is subject to the democratic checks and balances of modern democratic systems.

Which translates into nothing more than some extra people being involved.

Actually no...it cannot. First, a relevant case has to be brought before the SCOTUS, which requires the case to have gone through multiple rounds of lower courts ruling on the case - usually years in the making. Then a certain number of SCOTUS Justices have to agree to even hear the case at all. Then a majority of the Justices have to agree to the merits of the case when it is presented. And SCOTUS since Roe has consistently upheld the right of women to have abortions. Even conservative majority Courts have done so. So again, your argument is completely ahistorical and based on some abstract what-if that absurdly over-simplifies what actually happens in the world.

I didn't mean the due process wouldn't be followed, but rather that the SCOTUS is not bound by anything. It is free to interpret the constitution however it wants.

And even if at some future point the SCOTUS did outlaw abortion - what would that prove? That we should have no SCOTUS? Do you think having no constitution means having no laws? We would still have a legal system in this country and we would still need a highest court to make final legal rulings.

You don't need a supreme court saying what values must take place in your society. You should be able to freely vote over this.

Good, then we agree that Constitutions have had a net positive effect.

It was not the Constitution per se that had a net positive effect, but rather having our voices heard.

 

[Left Coast]

No. It is not because of the constitution. It is because the other people in power will enforce the constitution as they interpret it.

That is the case with all law and all words. Yet words still have meaning. They are not just purely empty vessels that can mean any and everything. That's why we argue about how laws and Constitutions are worded.

Which translates into nothing more than some extra people being involved.

Well sorry, "people are going to be involved" no matter what system you advocate. What do you think happens after popular votes are held? Human beings - the few, the "elite" - have to go about actually enacting what the people have indicated. And fights inevitably ensue over what the text of popularly decided laws mean. And those fights go to the evil judges that you dislike so much, people who are experts in law.

I didn't mean the due process wouldn't be followed, but rather that the SCOTUS is not bound by anything. It is free to interpret the constitution however it wants.

That's an ironic position, since it is not a view shared by any of the actual Justices on the Court, left right or center. They are not free to just make up random interpretations of the law out of nothing.

You don't need a supreme court saying what values must take place in your society. You should be able to freely vote over this.

"Values" are squishy things that get fleshed out by actual laws that make concrete impositions on how society actually functions. And I'm sorry, but we do need judges to adjudicate legal disputes within whichever system we choose. That's what the Supreme Court does.

It was not the Constitution per se that had a net positive effect, but rather having our voices heard.

Our voices are heard because of the enactment of Constitutions that enshrine legal rights for us that require our voices to be heard.

 

[Koldo]

That is the case with all law and all words. Yet words still have meaning. They are not just purely empty vessels that can mean any and everything. That's why we argue about how laws and Constitutions are worded.

It is all smokes and mirrors though. The ones in power can get away with whatever they want the words to mean.

Well sorry, "people are going to be involved" no matter what system you advocate. What do you think happens after popular votes are held? Human beings - the few, the "elite" - have to go about actually enacting what the people have indicated. And fights inevitably ensue over what the text of popularly decided laws mean. And those fights go to the evil judges that you dislike so much, people who are experts in law.

The judges aren't evil. They are just humans with their own sets of values and biases. The problem is not that people are involved. The problem is that only a few get to dictate what is the law.

That's an ironic position, since it is not a view shared by any of the actual Justices on the Court, left right or center. They are not free to just make up random interpretations of the law out of nothing.

Then please tell me who gets to stop them from making up things and how often it happens.

"Values" are squishy things that get fleshed out by actual laws that make concrete impositions on how society actually functions. And I'm sorry, but we do need judges to adjudicate legal disputes within whichever system we choose. That's what the Supreme Court does.

Values are principles that underly the laws.
Obviously we need the judiciary branch to deal with legal disputes. The problem is when it gets to decide the meaning of the constitution.

Our voices are heard because of the enactment of Constitutions that enshrine legal rights for us that require our voices to be heard.

No! Our voices are only heard, up to an extent even so, simply because the people in power keep choosing it to be this way.

 

[Left Coast]

It is all smokes and mirrors though. The ones in power can get away with whatever they want the words to mean.

That's just an empty accusation.

The judges aren't evil. They are just humans with their own sets of values and biases. The problem is not that people are involved. The problem is that only a few get to dictate what is the law.

Judges do not dictate what is the law. Legislatures and voters do that. Judges apply the law as written. The fact that you very obviously do not understand this is concerning.

Then please tell me who gets to stop them from making up things and how often it happens.

On the contrary, please cite one example of them randomly making up a legal decision out of thin air. Literally every decision they make is argued on its legal merits and they literally write out their legal reasoning for it, based on the text of the law and past precedent of how similar or applicable cases have been decided. And if some the judges disagree with the majority's opinion, they write out their legal reasoning for their dissent. Have you ever actually read any SCOTUS decisions? You should. It might be an education for you.

Values are principles that underly the laws.
Obviously we need the judiciary branch to deal with legal disputes. The problem is when it gets to decide the meaning of the constitution.

Settling legal disputes means deciding upon how law has been and should be interpreted and applied, based on what it says. That's what's involved in settling legal disputes.

No! Our voices are only heard, up to an extent even so, simply because the people in power keep choosing it to be this way.

...The people in power are elected by us. The reason they're elected is because we have a constitution that requires them to be elected. This is extremely basic. Elected officials don't "choose" to allow the Constitution to be in effect, where they might just as easily tomorrow decide to reinstitute slavery or remain in office for life or something. Legal and political systems are not that random and flippant. Elected officials are constrained within their offices by the limitations placed on them by the constitution. That's how the world works.

 

[Koldo]

That's just an empty accusation.

Who exactly holds them accountable?
When has it ever happened?

Judges do not dictate what is the law. Legislatures and voters do that. Judges apply the law as written. The fact that you very obviously do not understand this is concerning.

To apply the law, one must first and foremost interpret it.
It's judiciary branch that gets to say what the words mean. No one else. There is a misconception here: judges don't apply the law as written, but rather as they interpret it.

I was speaking specifically about the judges in the SCOTUS by the way, since I don't know much about the regular judges.
Let me tell you though that in Brazil, any regular judge may declare any given law as unconstitutional and therefore inapplicable to any given case that they get their hands into.

On the contrary, please cite one example of them randomly making up a legal decision out of thin air. Literally every decision they make is argued on its legal merits and they literally write out their legal reasoning for it, based on the text of the law and past precedent of how similar or applicable cases have been decided. And if some the judges disagree with the majority's opinion, they write out their legal reasoning for their dissent. Have you ever actually read any SCOTUS decisions? You should. It might be an education for you.

I don't disagree they must make up an excuse to justify their votes. But that's all it has to be: an excuse.
How do you distinguish an excuse from a legitimate rationale to vote one way or another?
It's extremely common to vote according to convenience, to what is in line to one's own values. If that was not the case, what's the big deal about choosing the next member of the SCOTUS? Whether it is a conservative or a liberal shouldn't matter, but it clearly does.

Settling legal disputes means deciding upon how law has been and should be interpreted and applied, based on what it says. That's what's involved in settling legal disputes.

Here is how I view the role that the judiciary branch ought to have:

"It is possible that the law, which is clear-sighted in one sense, and blind in another, might, in some cases, be too severe. But, as we have already observed, the national judges are no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings, incapable of moderating either its force or rigour." - Monstesquieu, The spirit of the laws.

...The people in power are elected by us. The reason they're elected is because we have a constitution that requires them to be elected. This is extremely basic. Elected officials don't "choose" to allow the Constitution to be in effect, where they might just as easily tomorrow decide to reinstitute slavery or remain in office for life or something. Legal and political systems are not that random and flippant. Elected officials are constrained within their offices by the limitations placed on them by the constitution. That's how the world works.

If you interested on this subject, I suggest you read "On the Essence of Constitutions" by Ferdinand Lassalle. It explains why the written constitutions are just a piece of paper and what the actual constitution is. Here is an excerpt:

"We now know the essence of both constitutions of the land, its real constitution – the actual relations of force existing in the country – and its written constitution which in contradistinction to the first may be called a scrap of paper.

It is clear that real constitutions have existed in every land and at all times, and there is nothing shallower or more misleading than the current notion that constitutions are peculiar to the modern age.

Every country in every age has therefore had a real constitution. What is peculiar to modern times is – and it is important always to bear this clearly in mind – not the actual but the written constitution – the piece of paper."

 

[Left Coast]

Who exactly holds them accountable?
When has it ever happened?

The Senate holds them accountable by appointing them. They hold one another accountable by debating and incessantly disagreeing with each other and forcing one another to make an argument as to why a case should be decided one way or another.

Again, please show me one SCOTUS decision made in a complete legislative vacuum with no Constitutional or legal rationale to it.

To apply the law, one must first and foremost interpret it.
It's judiciary branch that gets to say what the words mean. No one else. There is a misconception here: judges don't apply the law as written, but rather as they interpret it.

I'm sorry, but the misconception is yours, sir. All of us have to interpret every word we ever read or hear. However, words still have inherent agreed upon meaning. No one has ever interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that I have a constitutional right to have my own magic pony. The reason for that is because the 14th Amendment says nothing remotely approaching that, nor has it ever been interpreted as such.

Again, it is the job of legislatures and voters to make laws. It is the job of the judicial branch to apply those laws in legal disputes. And ironically it is conservative judges, whose political philosophy is most agreeable toward "the elite" as you'd call it, who insist that the Constitution must be interpreted most strictly based only on what it verbatim says and how it was originally understood by its authors.

Let me tell you though that in Brazil, any regular judge may declare any given law as unconstitutional and therefore inapplicable to any given case that they get their hands into.

Lower court judges in the US may declare laws unconstitutional as well. However the Supreme Court is still the highest court in the land that adjudicates such cases if they are appealed. But any judge who just willy nilly declared laws unconstitutional for no good reason can be suspended or removed. They're not dictators.

I don't disagree they must make up an excuse to justify their votes. But that's all it has to be: an excuse.

That's a rather cynical view, and based on what you've said thus far reflects that you likely haven't read many of their decisions or dissents. You don't think any of the Justices on the Supreme Court honestly believe they adjudicate cases in accordance with their view of the Constitution? They're all just making it up to suit their whims?

How do you distinguish an excuse from a legitimate rationale to vote one way or another?

Using reason and evidence, like anything else.

It's extremely common to vote according to convenience, to what is in line to one's own values. If that was not the case, what's the big deal about choosing the next member of the SCOTUS? Whether it is a conservative or a liberal shouldn't matter, but it clearly does.

Again, you misunderstand. In my view it's preferable for us to appoint left-leaning Justices, but that doesn't mean I think conservative Justices are just deceitful Machiavellian villains who make up their judicial decisions on the fly based on nothing but their whims or political preferences. People have good faith disagreements about how to interpret and apply the Constitution.

Here is how I view the role that the judiciary branch ought to have:

"It is possible that the law, which is clear-sighted in one sense, and blind in another, might, in some cases, be too severe. But, as we have already observed, the national judges are no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings, incapable of moderating either its force or rigour." - Monstesquieu, The spirit of the laws.

If only the world were so simple.

If you interested on this subject, I suggest you read "On the Essence of Constitutions" by Ferdinand Lassalle. It explains why the written constitutions are just a piece of paper and what the actual constitution is. Here is an excerpt:

"We now know the essence of both constitutions of the land, its real constitution – the actual relations of force existing in the country – and its written constitution which in contradistinction to the first may be called a scrap of paper.

It is clear that real constitutions have existed in every land and at all times, and there is nothing shallower or more misleading than the current notion that constitutions are peculiar to the modern age.

Every country in every age has therefore had a real constitution. What is peculiar to modern times is – and it is important always to bear this clearly in mind – not the actual but the written constitution – the piece of paper."

That is, again, a rather facile view of things. I can argue that the money in my pocket is "just paper" as well. Yet that paper holds value, holds significance, enables me to do things that I wouldn't be able to do without it. Similarly so with laws and constitutions.

 

[Koldo]

The Senate holds them accountable by appointing them. They hold one another accountable by debating and incessantly disagreeing with each other and forcing one another to make an argument as to why a case should be decided one way or another.

Again, please show me one SCOTUS decision made in a complete legislative vacuum with no Constitutional or legal rationale to it.

Is that it? Really? Do you call that being held accountable?
In Brazil, the Senate can kick them out through an impeachment. It has never happened though, and it likely won't ever happen because it is like playing with fire.

My statements don't depend on any given SCOTUS decision being made in a complete vacuum, by the way.
But they can be exemplified by cases of judicial activism. Roe v. Wade is a pretty popular example. There is absolutely no way that the right to privacy was meant to be interpreted as the right to abortion. That was completely made up to fit an agenda. And I say this even being a person that is completely in favor of abortion rights.

I'm sorry, but the misconception is yours, sir. All of us have to interpret every word we ever read or hear. However, words still have inherent agreed upon meaning. No one has ever interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that I have a constitutional right to have my own magic pony. The reason for that is because the 14th Amendment says nothing remotely approaching that, nor has it ever been interpreted as such.

Again, it is the job of legislatures and voters to make laws. It is the job of the judicial branch to apply those laws in legal disputes. And ironically it is conservative judges, whose political philosophy is most agreeable toward "the elite" as you'd call it, who insist that the Constitution must be interpreted most strictly based only on what it verbatim says and how it was originally understood by its authors.

My point was missed. Obviously we need to interpret every word we read and hear. What I meant that you can't claim that a judge is not acting in strict observance of the law just by looking at what is written in the law, because the judge can simply dismiss it by claiming that he doesn't interpret it the way you do. What matters at the end of the way is how he interprets it, and not what is written per se.

Another point you might not know: In Brazil, we have a lot of second generation rights. One of them is a right to recreation. There is nothing stopping a judge from deciding that the State must give a magic pony to a citizen that asks for it. Other than him looking silly for doing so, of course.

Lower court judges in the US may declare laws unconstitutional as well. However the Supreme Court is still the highest court in the land that adjudicates such cases if they are appealed. But any judge who just willy nilly declared laws unconstitutional for no good reason can be suspended or removed. They're not dictators.

They can be, but how often does that happen? Who judges whether something counts as a good reason? The ordinary citizens or the ones in power?

That's a rather cynical view, and based on what you've said thus far reflects that you likely haven't read many of their decisions or dissents. You don't think any of the Justices on the Supreme Court honestly believe they adjudicate cases in accordance with their view of the Constitution? They're all just making it up to suit their whims?

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is nothing preventing them from effectively making it up if they wish.

Using reason and evidence, like anything else.

Ever heard of Poe's law?
It is the same with those decisions.

Again, you misunderstand. In my view it's preferable for us to appoint left-leaning Justices, but that doesn't mean I think conservative Justices are just deceitful Machiavellian villains who make up their judicial decisions on the fly based on nothing but their whims or political preferences. People have good faith disagreements about how to interpret and apply the Constitution.

What am I misunderstanding?

If only the world were so simple.

It is doable, but it would entail the judiciary branch giving up some of its power.

That is, again, a rather facile view of things. I can argue that the money in my pocket is "just paper" as well. Yet that paper holds value, holds significance, enables me to do things that I wouldn't be able to do without it. Similarly so with laws and constitutions.

Except we can agree that 1 dollar is 1 dollar. This is not up for debate. The same agreement doesn't exist as far as laws and constitutions go.

 

[Left Coast]

Is that it? Really? Do you call that being held accountable?

Um yes, I call the entire legal and Constitutional apparatus of my country an accountability check, to which Justices commit their entire professional lives in order for the chance to even one day maybe be asked to be considered as a Justice, in which every day they may publicly defend their opinions against other legal experts. You think that's nothing? Would you like to try?

My statements don't depend on any given SCOTUS decision being made in a complete vacuum, by the way.

They certainly seem to.

But they can be exemplified by cases of judicial activism. Roe v. Wade is a pretty popular example. There is absolutely no way that the right to privacy was meant to be interpreted as the right to abortion. That was completely made up to fit an agenda. And I say this even being a person that is completely in favor of abortion rights.

This depends on your constitutional philosophy. Everyone does nit agree that the Constitution only protects, or was meant to protect, only rights explicitly spelled out in them. Justice Breyer has written quite a bit about that from a leftist perspective, if you're interested.

My point was missed. Obviously we need to interpret every word we read and hear. What I meant that you can't claim that a judge is not acting in strict observance of the law just by looking at what is written in the law, because the judge can simply dismiss it by claiming that he doesn't interpret it the way you do. What matters at the end of the way is how he interprets it, and not what is written per se.

Again, this is objection in a vacuum that ignores how actual Constitutional cases are argued. You are simply wrong here. Please actually read some case law. What is written is extremely relevant.

They can be, but how often does that happen? Who judges whether something counts as a good reason? The ordinary citizens or the ones in power?

Generally it's the American Bar Association, I think. Again, these are people who take the law extremely seriously and dedicate their entire professional lives to understanding and applying it accurately and fairly. It doesn't happen every day for the same reason that people in any highly educated professional field don't routinely get banned from their profession every day: most of them make an informed, good faith effort to do their jobs well. Like you probably do, too.

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is nothing preventing them from effectively making it up if they wish.

Other than the other Justices whom they must convince to agree with them. And whom all take their jobs to apply the Constitution extremely seriously, if you've ever read anything they've written or listened to them talk for 5 minutes.

Ever heard of Poe's law?
It is the same with those decisions.

And it's the same with this conversation as well, it seems. I literally could not invent a more farcically over-simplified view of how the legal system works than what you're expressing. Are you actually being serious? Who's to say?

What am I misunderstanding?

You misunderstand why partisans care what sorts of Justices get appointed to the Court. It isn't because we think Justices for the other team are necessarily dishonest actors who just make up the legal rationales for their views out of thin air. It's because they have an honest view of the Constitution that is at odds with what we think and want for the country.

It is doable, but it would entail the judiciary branch giving up some of its power.

Conservatives on the Court would agree with you. They too think Justices jobs are just about literally verbatim applying what is written and what is written only. The reality is always more complicated than that utopian vision, though. And it has nothing to do with being power hungry.

Except we can agree that 1 dollar is 1 dollar. This is not up for debate. The same agreement doesn't exist as far as laws and constitutions go.

The fact that people disagree at times about laws does not make them meaningless or useless. If you actually think that, why would we have votes on laws? Why have any laws at all? Why communicate with words? Why say anything, ever?

 

[viole]

That's pretty rich, considering that Switzerland has the most restrictive naturalization laws on this planet, with nearly a fourth of its population being permament residents without citizenship. It's a true democracy in the Athenian style indeed.

We like that way. And considering that people actually try to come here, and not the other way round, and we rate, together with not citizen residents, very high in terms of general happiness, well-being, quality of life, etc, I would say it is a winning strategy.

To be considered for other countries.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

Um yes, I call the entire legal and Constitutional apparatus of my country an accountability check, to which Justices commit their entire professional lives in order for the chance to even one day maybe be asked to be considered as a Justice, in which every day they may publicly defend their opinions against other legal experts. You think that's nothing? Would you like to try?

I am talking about being held responsible for one own's action to the point you lose your job, at the very minimum. Who and how can their jobs be taken away if they performed poorly?

They certainly seem to.

This depends on your constitutional philosophy. Everyone does nit agree that the Constitution only protects, or was meant to protect, only rights explicitly spelled out in them. Justice Breyer has written quite a bit about that from a leftist perspective, if you're interested.

Not everyone agrees that heliocentrism is true.
It is the same.

Again, this is objection in a vacuum that ignores how actual Constitutional cases are argued. You are simply wrong here. Please actually read some case law. What is written is extremely relevant.

I have! And I can grant you that what matters the most is what is claimed to be interpreted, not what is written.

Generally it's the American Bar Association, I think. Again, these are people who take the law extremely seriously and dedicate their entire professional lives to understanding and applying it accurately and fairly. It doesn't happen every day for the same reason that people in any highly educated professional field don't routinely get banned from their profession every day: most of them make an informed, good faith effort to do their jobs well. Like you probably do, too.

Has it ever happened in your country?
Because in mine it has never happened. They have never even been judged by the Senate. One would expect that much at least.

Other than the other Justices whom they must convince to agree with them. And whom all take their jobs to apply the Constitution extremely seriously, if you've ever read anything they've written or listened to them talk for 5 minutes.

How exactly do the others prevent it?
Do they ever kick out one of themselves?

And it's the same with this conversation as well, it seems. I literally could not invent a more farcically over-simplified view of how the legal system works than what you're expressing. Are you actually being serious? Who's to say?

Nothing to comment here since there is nothing resembling an argument.

You misunderstand why partisans care what sorts of Justices get appointed to the Court. It isn't because we think Justices for the other team are necessarily dishonest actors who just make up the legal rationales for their views out of thin air. It's because they have an honest view of the Constitution that is at odds with what we think and want for the country.

How do you think they have reached at their interpretation of the Constitution? Do you seriously mean that you think they became conservative or liberal because of the techniques they have employed to interpret the constitution?

That's not how it works! What happens is the other way around. They merely project their values into what they read. Have you ever talked to judges before?

Conservatives on the Court would agree with you. They too think Justices jobs are just about literally verbatim applying what is written and what is written only. The reality is always more complicated than that utopian vision, though. And it has nothing to do with being power hungry.

It is a facade from the conservatives!
The reason why they say that is that a literal interpretation is in line with conservative values. It fits their agenda!

The fact that people disagree at times about laws does not make them meaningless or useless. If you actually think that, why would we have votes on laws? Why have any laws at all? Why communicate with words? Why say anything, ever?

I am not saying that laws are useless though.
The problem is not existence of laws but rather the power of the judiciary branch.

 

[Left Coast]

I am talking about being held responsible for one own's action to the point you lose your job, at the very minimum. Who and how can their jobs be taken away if they performed poorly?

They can be impeached by Congress.

Not everyone agrees that heliocentrism is true.
It is the same.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment. Some people have absurdly inaccurate worldviews? Yes that's true.

People disagree about what various clauses of the Constitution mean. And?

I have! And I can grant you that what matters the most is what is claimed to be interpreted, not what is written.

As we've already covered, all words have to be interpreted, in all languages. If from that you draw the conclusion that therefore words are devoid of commonly understood meaning and people just make up meanings in their head from thin air or from whatever they want to hear, all I can tell you is... you're incorrect. This very conversation contradicts that notion. You're writing all kinds of things that I don't want to hear, because they are inaccurate and don't make sense. Yet I'm reading and understanding them.

Has it ever happened in your country?
Because in mine it has never happened. They have never even been judged by the Senate. One would expect that much at least.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges

How exactly do the others prevent it?
Do they ever kick out one of themselves?

Individual SCOTUS Justices have very little power. Their power comes from making judgments as a group. If a Justice wants to rule a certain way on a case, she has to make an argument, and that argument has to convince a majority of the 8 other Justices. So they hold one another accountable by debating and making consensus decisions.

It's the Legislature who would "kick one out," if that became necessary.

Nothing to comment here since there is nothing resembling an argument.

If you're going to cynically claim that judges just make up random legal rationales to defend their judgments and there's no way to distinguish that from their genuine legal opinions, then why can the same not be said about you, right now?

How do you think they have reached at their interpretation of the Constitution?

It's called law school. Again, their careers are literally dedicated to understanding and application of law, including the Constitution.

Do you seriously mean that you think they became conservative or liberal because of the techniques they have employed to interpret the constitution?

No, I'm sure they come into the job with a political bias, as we all do. I also think study and experience in law shape their views. And they often rule in ways that one would not expect given their political leanings. And they often agree with each other on legal opinions despite their political differences.

You are cynically assuming that they are all just political hacks with Macchiavellian intentions to just enact their personal political views. That's just a silly caricature of how this actually work. I don't know how much more I can explain this to you.

Again, you should try actually reading their decisions.

That's not how it works! What happens is the other way around. They merely project their values into what they read. Have you ever talked to judges before?

Yes. Have you? Have you ever read a SCOTUS decision?

It is a facade from the conservatives!
The reason why they say that is that a literal interpretation is in line with conservative values. It fits their agenda!

Yes, it does. And your view fits your agenda. Humans are biased creatures. However, with awareness and training we can and do reduce that bias. And legally the entire training of a judge is in impartial reading of law. Are they perfect? Of course not. Do they always agree with each other? Of course not. That's why we have more than one. That's life. That's how things work.

I am not saying that laws are useless though.
The problem is not existence of laws but rather the power of the judiciary branch.

You are never, in any system of sufficient complexity, going to eliminate the need for people to adjudicate legal disputes based on different readings of what laws say or how they apply in given circumstances. You may not like it, but again - that's how the world works.

Here at RF, we have a kind of Constitution, the Rules. We have a team of people who moderate site content on consensus, as sort of site "judges." Why do you think we do that? Do you think we just need to read the rules and then it becomes universally crystal clear how those rules apply to every given scenario that comes up on the site? I'm sorry but again - that's not how the world works. Staff disagree with each other all. The. Time. About the intended meaning of Rules, about how rules should apply in given circumstances, and so on. Despite all of us putting in a good faith effort to be impartial and apply the Rules as written.

If that's what's occurred in our tiny little corner of the universe, how do you expect things to be different on a national level of vastly more complexity and import? I'm sorry, but the idea that judges are "just going to read the rules" and it will be crystal clear to all how they apply in all scenarios is just a fantasy. That's why the judiciary branch is needed and has the power it has.

 

[Koldo]

They can be impeached by Congress.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges

Is this an exhaustive list?
Not even a single case where a member of the Supreme Court got kicked out?
And only eight cases for federal judges, in general, in over 200 years?
Do you sincerely think this system is working?

I don't understand the relevance of this comment. Some people have absurdly inaccurate worldviews? Yes that's true.

People disagree about what various clauses of the Constitution mean. And?

The problem is not the disagreement. There are legitimate disagreements when the words are dubious, for instance, or when the technological advances renders a really old legal paradigm ill suited. The problem happens when a few people decide they have the power to expand the meaning of the words to achieve what they want. I can give you another example: Buckley v. Valeo. There is absolutely no way free speech was intended to cover political spending. Such wild interpretations are like geocentrism, where the proponents picks the evidence they want to fit their agenda while ignoring everything else.

As we've already covered, all words have to be interpreted, in all languages. If from that you draw the conclusion that therefore words are devoid of commonly understood meaning and people just make up meanings in their head from thin air or from whatever they want to hear, all I can tell you is... you're incorrect. This very conversation contradicts that notion. You're writing all kinds of things that I don't want to hear, because they are inaccurate and don't make sense. Yet I'm reading and understanding them.

I am not saying that words are devoid of a commonly understood meaning. Not at all. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that those in power can render the words in a constitution devoid of meaning.

Individual SCOTUS Justices have very little power. Their power comes from making judgments as a group. If a Justice wants to rule a certain way on a case, she has to make an argument, and that argument has to convince a majority of the 8 other Justices. So they hold one another accountable by debating and making consensus decisions.

It's the Legislature who would "kick one out," if that became necessary.

How many times have you watched it happening?
I can tell you how it works in Brazil in a quite simplified way: Whenever a petition of some kind reaches the Supreme Court, there is one justice that is initially responsible for it,. This judge is callled the 'relator'. The relator is the first one that gets to vote, in a manner that his opinion is known to others beforehand. When the other justices get their chance to vote, their votes, as in the dozen or so pages they get to submit explaing their reasoning, are already ready. Although sometimes a change of mind happens, it is not that common though, and tends not to make much of a difference. If one of them gets to say something completely crazy, that none of the others agree with, they just suck it up or complain. And that's it. This is not equivalent to holding someone accountable.

If you're going to cynically claim that judges just make up random legal rationales to defend their judgments and there's no way to distinguish that from their genuine legal opinions, then why can the same not be said about you, right now?

What would I be making up specifically?

It's called law school. Again, their careers are literally dedicated to understanding and application of law, including the Constitution.

I was going to group this part of your post with the next one, but since the opportunity presents itself:
Have you ever attended the law school yourself?
Just to clarify: If you say you haven't, that's alright. I just want to know whether you are speaking from experience or from some preconceived notion.

No, I'm sure they come into the job with a political bias, as we all do. I also think study and experience in law shape their views. And they often rule in ways that one would not expect given their political leanings. And they often agree with each other on legal opinions despite their political differences.

You are cynically assuming that they are all just political hacks with Macchiavellian intentions to just enact their personal political views. That's just a silly caricature of how this actually work. I don't know how much more I can explain this to you.

Again, you should try actually reading their decisions.

Yes. Have you? Have you ever read a SCOTUS decision?

Often? How often?
Do you mean often enough to the point their bias wouldn't be known merely by looking at their decisions as a whole?

Please read this: Supreme Court Justices Become Less Impartial and More Ideological When Casting the Swing Vote

Here is an excerpt:

"The team analyzed votes by Supreme Court justices on more than 8,500 cases since World War II. They found that when a justice casts the deciding vote, his or her personal beliefs suddenly matter far more.

“The effect of a justice’s ideology on how he or she votes essentially doubles when the vote is pivotal,” Spenkuch says."

Yes, it does. And your view fits your agenda. Humans are biased creatures. However, with awareness and training we can and do reduce that bias. And legally the entire training of a judge is in impartial reading of law. Are they perfect? Of course not. Do they always agree with each other? Of course not. That's why we have more than one. That's life. That's how things work.

How exactly are the judges trained to be impartial?
By the way, pointing out how things are doesn't entail that is how things should be. We can do better than that.

You are never, in any system of sufficient complexity, going to eliminate the need for people to adjudicate legal disputes based on different readings of what laws say or how they apply in given circumstances. You may not like it, but again - that's how the world works.

Here at RF, we have a kind of Constitution, the Rules. We have a team of people who moderate site content on consensus, as sort of site "judges." Why do you think we do that? Do you think we just need to read the rules and then it becomes universally crystal clear how those rules apply to every given scenario that comes up on the site? I'm sorry but again - that's not how the world works. Staff disagree with each other all. The. Time. About the intended meaning of Rules, about how rules should apply in given circumstances, and so on. Despite all of us putting in a good faith effort to be impartial and apply the Rules as written.

If that's what's occurred in our tiny little corner of the universe, how do you expect things to be different on a national level of vastly more complexity and import? I'm sorry, but the idea that judges are "just going to read the rules" and it will be crystal clear to all how they apply in all scenarios is just a fantasy. That's why the judiciary branch is needed and has the power it has.

The judiciary branch is needed, but it doesn't need to have power to the extent it has.
Often enough rules and laws are designed as guidelines. This gives power to whoever is going to apply those rules and laws, since they are intentionally made vague. But that's not even the issue I have been pointing out. The issue is that even when they are not vague, a judge can pretend they are, particularly in the supreme court. I can present to you more cases of judicial activism if you wish.

 

[Kooky]

We like that way. And considering that people actually try to come here, and not the other way round, and we rate, together with not citizen residents, very high in terms of general happiness, well-being, quality of life, etc, I would say it is a winning strategy.

To be considered for other countries.

Ciao

- viole

Of course the pure-blooded citizens like it when the franchise is limited. Same as the men of Graubünden who liked it when women weren't allowed to vote, until a Supreme Court decision told them that wouldn't fly any more in the 1970s, or for that matter the US South when the 3/5th rule still applied.

No oligarchy has ever reliquished its power gladly, or even voluntarily in many cases.

 

[viole]

Then we're operating from fundamentally different views of morality. It also makes it seem rather strange that you'd so strongly support banning something when you believe you have no objective basis for doing so. It seems to me that belief should further underline that on a different day and in a different place, it could be your rights and freedoms being curtailed rather than someone else's based on nothing but whims and individual prejudices.

Yes, I am not a moral realist. For me morality is an evolved properties of our brains, in most cases selected to increase our chance to survive as we are forced into interdependence with our fellow primates to survive. A sort of blindly evolved solutions to some game and optimization theory problems.

If we were like T Rexes, probably it would immoral to help others. Who is right? Depends on biology. So, to say that helping the weak is good is like saying chocolate is good, objective only in the sense that it is the result of activations of some brain areas and not others.

Morality comes from « mores », which is latin for customs. And therefore, from my POV moral predicates change their truth table depending on culture and biology.

If we had a biology that dictates half of our kids should be killed in order to increase survival of the remaining ones, then killing kds would be a moral imperative. In our case, we do not do1000s of kids, but our few kids require huge investment, and therefore we evolved the moral imperative that kids should not be killed. But per-se, and independently from biology, morality is meaningless.

the cultural part is more memetic than genetic, and varies therefore more often. But still, without that transfer of information between us (e.g. culture) morality would still be meaningless.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Of course the pure-blooded citizens like it when the franchise is limited. Same as the men of Graubünden who liked it when women weren't allowed to vote, until a Supreme Court decision told them that wouldn't fly any more in the 1970s, or for that matter the US South when the 3/5th rule still applied.

No oligarchy has ever reliquished its power gladly, or even voluntarily in many cases.

What oligarchy? The Swiss citizens are 80% of the residents., and they have the saying in basically everything. Directly. How is that a oligarchy? Looks exactly the opposite thereof.

and what pure blooded? Many are naturalized, including me. And it is not unusual to see the new citizens being more conservative of the poor blooded, as you called them.

ciao

- viole

 

[Kooky]

What oligarchy? The Swiss citizens are 80% of the residents., and they have the saying in basically everything. Directly. How is that a oligarchy? Looks exactly the opposite thereof.

and what pure blooded? Many are naturalized, including me. And it is not unusual to see the new citizens being more conservative of the poor blooded, as you called them.

ciao

- viole

Sure, the wealthy always get fast tracked through citizenship, as everyone expects them to be generous to their new homelands. Blocher was the same, a millionaire fast tracked through the bureaucratic process, while there are literal third generation immigrants living in Switzerland.

And you are right, FUGM is a common sentiment among the wealthy and those who got lucky. It frequently serves to help them justify their own fortune as a moral inevitability, by denigrating the moral and social value of those who did not make it to their place.

 

[viole]

Well, everything except universal female suffrage. That one was decided by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, IIRC.

Wrong, that was also the result of a free election (with only men).

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

I can give you another example: Buckley v. Valeo. There is absolutely no way free speech was intended to cover political spending.

Given that speech ever since the creation of printing has
required spending money, it makes perfect sense that
we have the right to spend money on political speech.
No money generally equals silence in the public eye.
Ref....
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia

Even in dissent.....
"Concededly, neither the limitations on contributions nor those on expenditures directly or indirectly purport to control the content of political speech by candidates or by their supporters or detractors. What the Act regulates is giving and spending money, acts that have First Amendment significance not because they are themselves communicative with respect to the qualifications of the candidate, but because money may be used to defray the expenses of speaking or otherwise communicating about the merits or demerits of federal candidates for election....."