Drat! They breed like rabbits, work for carrots and they’re taking all our jobs!
Like anything else, you have to follow the money. Literally, in this case. There cannot be seccession in any state using the USD. That would be like playing poker and letting your opponent use cards from your hand. You’d instantly lose.
Every civil war has to start with something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_dollar
That’s what we have to watch for. If California and/or a few others issue a new currency so as to have financial sovereignty away from the Union, then you better dust off your Civil War reenactment gear.
Still want to underscore that there is no movement or interest to do such a thing here. Calexit is not a thing. We joked about it a lot and that’s it.
@Havenstone @P_Tigras I’m curious what you guys think of the premise of this article? Is the Supreme Court as an institution no longer a primarily judicial check-and-balance but forever a flat-out political and politicized institution now?
Yes, since the Clarence Thomas nomination. Some would say the Robert Bork but I draw the line with Thomas.
Why Thomas, would you like to elaborate? I always love to hear arguments.
For example wouldn’t it also be accurate as I’ve read in some other articles on the internet that it was Dred Scott that irrevocably shifted your Supreme Court from a purely legal to a political institution?
This is the keyword in your statement and that decision did politicize the court for a while but the American Civil War had “reset” the process - I have to leave for now but we can revisit this later if you desire.
Unless any given configuration prevents the Supreme Court from doing its job, then there shouldn’t be a problem with changes in public perception.
Well that seems to be the question, doesn’t it? The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final interpreter of US Federal law and the Constitution, but there are intense legal and political disagreements on what that ought to mean.
There are always problems with changes in public perception when it comes to the law, not in the least due to the inherent, conservative bias of the former. Note that does not always mean conservative politically, it merely means that even during the best of times the law is almost always behind the times, which often creates a disconnect with the zeitgeist, for numerous and varied reasons that jurists, historians and psychologists among others have filled bookshelves with analyzing.
In that case, might I suggest that if in fact the Supreme Court is becoming more of a ‘politicized institution,’ then is it not evolving in order to approach (become more in touch with) the very zeitgeist from which the law stems?
I’d go well pre-Bork. The Warren Court was when modern US judicial activism really kicked off–when the judiciary began very actively interpreting the constitution against the other two branches of government. The Burger Court was also strikingly political, with Roe v Wade as one of the classic examples of a decision that dictates the law rather than interpreting it.
The long, gradual conservative takeover of the judiciary (1981-2018) was a response to decades in which a liberal majority on the Supreme Court asserted answers to some of the most important and contested policy questions of our time. Flareups like the confirmation battles over Bork and Thomas weren’t the beginning of the politicization…they reflected the fact that it was already politicized.
The law does quickly get behind the times. It won’t surprise you to hear that I think it’s generally the legislatures’ job, not the courts’, to keep it up to date. The fact that the US left got into the habit of relying on the courts to do the job is at the root of one of the great dysfunctions of our democracy.
Well, like I said I think it is problematic that the US does not have something like the Swiss style national referendum to drag the stragglers who are really behind the times along and it would be little consolation for the men who might still be prosecuted, jailed and have their lives destroyed (with the lack of any true rehabilitation and re-enfranchisement most US criminal convictions are today’s equivalent of an outlaw brand on the forehead) simply for having consensual sex with someone of the same gender.
In fact without Lawrence I could easily see the state governments of Texas and Mississippi trawling gay dating apps to arrest and indict residents of their state trying to hook up and thus copying the South Korean military.
Far from being at the level of gay marriage those few states would still criminalize consensual gay sex as “sodomy”.
Yep, that’s what all our law professors mean by “inherent conservative bias of the law” after all.
I believe it is worth mention that Japan is going against it’s constitution and is converting it’s helicopter carriers to aircraft carriers. Also the government has yet to offer a sincere apology for its war crimes.
Any fellow Australians following the politics here? Because I’m not! Honestly, I do have to say that the politicians and politics relating to the country are kind of boring here, I’ve grown interested in other countries’ politics except for mine. Maybe it’s just how unimportant most things happen during the year, or maybe it’s just the fact that I don’t check the news.
Rants aside, any other Australians willing to voice their thoughts or any silent observers wanting to comment on our political climate?
Australian politics are actually remarkably vicious for your political leaders as there seem to be fairly frequent intraparty coups. Like how Turnbull replaced Abbot, for example.
In any case I’m onto you Aussies as to the fact that Australia will probably the next global hegemon after the current political crisis in the US and EU have played out and the dust settles.
IMO, that’s not really true. The assholes in politics were for the most part already assholes before they were practicing politicians. What is true is that power corrupts. Even so some people are better at dealing with that then others but as a general rule letting the leaders at the top stay on beyond 8-10 years is generally unwise.
policy makes people evil
I just saw in our local news that there’s an anti-Trump rally in Milton Keynes - a place about 5000 miles away from Trump that he’s probably never even heard of. I bet he’ll be quaking in his boots.
What is it about people in other countries that makes them imagine holding a protest is going to make the slightest difference? It’s not like we don’t have problems of our own over here!
Yeah our system is pretty passively vicious with the coups. Despite that, it’s still hilariously underwhelming considering how it’s a damn coup. I kid you not, I legitimately thought that Abbot was minister until the election occurred. Same goes with the Julia Gillard being replaced in 2012. Our political climate is still quite quiet. The only time I remember the politics got extreme and loud was during the LGBT marriage vote back in 2017, but it quickly quieted down after that. There was a time where the government potentially could’ve got involved in a war and NO-ONE KNEW!
I hope it does become a hegemon sooner, Australia is pretty much just a British copy of America (despite how television/media/movies portray us).
Forty years ago, sure. Even twenty years ago, that might conceivably have been true, though I doubt it. Today, I don’t think you could get that through any state legislature in America. The culture’s changed too much. Mike Pence’s Indiana couldn’t pass the RFRA (which falls a long way short of outlawing sodomy!) without knuckling under to the backlash from major corporations.
Not to say there isn’t a lot of pain that could be caused in states that succeed in e.g. challenging Obergefell (though like @P_Tigras, I think that’s very unlikely) or passing freedom-of-conscience laws that allow discrimination against same-sex couples and trans people (highly likely). But it wouldn’t extend to recriminalisation of sodomy. The sodomy laws in Texas had fallen so far out of favor by 1998 that to get them repealed, Lambda Legal had to persuade defendants to plead no contest and haggle with the judge to increase the penalty–otherwise it would never have bubbled up to the Supreme Court. And it’s a different world now than it was twenty years ago.
The victories of the last few decades can only be reversed so far, even by a conservative Supreme Court. “Conservative” in Chief Justice Roberts’ case, after all, includes a measure of genuine judicial restraint (as witness his refusal to destroy Obamacare when given the chance).