The sanctity of the Supreme Court

[naughtymind]

I really don’t come to Literotica to debate politics, and I’m not entirely convinced that this post is even worthy of my time, but I just so happen to be logged in and I thought I’d share my own perspective of the chaos and vitriol of this last couple weeks. I will not be responding to the trolls of the board, as I have most of you blocked already, and I’m not really interested in the debate (carnage) that may well ensue. Spare yourself, as I’m sure there are plenty of other threads where you’ll have better opportunities to come up with childish and unproductive insults that most of us won’t bother to read anyway.

So then, on with it man!

I have watched with growing disgust and disenfranchisement the circus that once was the senate confirmation “hearings” for the Supreme Court nominees that came from the Whitehouse. Politics have always been an ugly business, and even politicians themselves have always been fond of pointing this out. Still, the Supreme Court has typically been somewhat above the inane partisan bickering of the house and senate. Why is this relevant, or even important and worth wasting my time or yours?

Well, I think both Democrats and Republicans could agree that respect for the law of the land needs to be strong regardless of party affiliation. To that end our forefathers, in their wisdom, set about to create a branch of government that superceeded the political controversy of the moment (at least somewhat); and whose wisdom and temperament could serve as an ultimate voice on matters of great importance to the interpretation of our constitution, regardless of which party might control either of the other two branches of government. Our forefathers could not have predicted some of the changes our nation would go through (such as the internet!), but they themselves seemed to recognize this very issue, and the courts have many times served as both tools to speed up certain areas that needed it, or stalled on certain issues that were too vague to pass constitutional merit. So far as I know, every single US president has had the Supreme Court rebuke some their best intentions as well as support some of them. (On this point there could well be certain exceptions, which I would be mildly curious to hear of; but I think the overall point stands).

The life long term has come under criticism as of late, and I certainly have some thoughts there, but I think it’s more important to consider just why that ever came to be in the first place. It is crucial that our justices span more than the administration that created them! Again, clearly our forefathers had both wisdom and vision: the court needed to be able to be critical of the president if/when they are out of step with our constitution and it’s intent! Every single American should embrace this, as it is one of the more crucial checks and balances on power!

Speaking of power. I think it really shows that our forefathers saw, and were gravely concerned with, the dangers of consolidated and unchecked powers. Anyone who doesn’t think so might want to spend a LOT more time re-reading our constitution (not just their personal favorite amendment or two)! Our forefathers understood the basic human nature behind greed and power, and clearly thought long and hard about how to safeguard the most crucial elements for a free society. We’re they perfect? No! Times and morals change, along with the specific needs and issues of the day. Somehow they had the remarkable humility to recognize exactly that basic fact: at some point their (and our)understanding of the world will prove dated, insufficient, and inaccurate. They knew there was no way to predict just how the world would change as our new nation evolved, so they engineered crucial mechanisms to prevent a tyrannical government from subverting the will of the people.

I suspect our forefathers might be rolling in their graves this week as they witnessed one of their greatest fears (and a key inspiration for our second amendment) come to bear. No doubt, there would be plenty of anger directed at members both political parties for a wide range of offenses! I have no doub however, that their greatest concern would superceed such temporary scandal (nothing new in our nation). I’m 100% certain the bigger, far more pressing question would be “how will this affect the sanctity of the court, and moreso the overall respect for the rule of law?” The alternative of course would be... Anarchy. You cannot have both. You can have either respect for the rule of law, or anarchy; it isn’t possible to have both.

I would guess that they would most likely have additional concerns about the level of addiction to power that has grown in substantial proportions throughout our nations history. They seemed to recognize the dangers of too much power in too few hands, and went to great lengths to attempt to minimize this potential. Perhaps this has been the thier greatest failing? Perhaps greed and power are just too much for us, and that addiction to both is more powerful than our forefathers were able to address when they outline our constitution? I’m thinking that quite possibly may be the case, and perhaps there is no political system that can sufficiently safeguard such negative human tendencies.

At any rate, it IS clear they would not be comfortable with our current configuration for exactly those reasons: a radical Republican president, Republican controlled house, and senate, and a largely conservative court. I have zero doubts in my mind that our forefathers would have grave concerns for both the make up of our current government (legislative, executive, and judicial branch), but moreso for the potential power the courts may well loose by the deepening level of partisanship affecting the courts.

I’ll just leave aside the allegations of sexual assault for now, though they do seem more than credible for a number of reasons, including Kavanaugh’s own record with honesty. Regardless, whether we like it or not, this court will not possibly have the same level of reverence and respect as it has in decades past. This could have been handled far better on so many levels! Members of the Senate from both sides of the isle, the FBI, the President, and even the nominee himself have blundered the entire process badly! The results will be that a smaller, and smaller percentage of our citizens will consider the word of the Supreme Court to be as valid as we did in decades past. We all loose if that happens.

Regardless of party affiliation, we should ALL be gravely concerned when either party gets so punch drunk on power that they loose sight of the greater good of all Americans in favor of their own short term agenda. More than ideological agenda, this has all the makings of lust for power in and if itself; morals and ideals seem to have left this congress long ago. No, I don’t expect any of this to change in the coming weeks or years. The only reason I write any of this is in the long shot hope that just a few more might be capable of settling down their own party allegiance long enough to look at the bigger picture and the long term fallout of this. Remember the old saying “what goes around comes around”? How much further would YOU personally like to see things escalate? How much “payback” and “re-payback” etc would you like to see? Pay close attention to how this progresses in the coming years and ask yourself where you stood as the Supreme Court took yet another knife wound to its integrity.

If I have offended your particular veiw of current events, that was never my intention, and you can choose to believe what you will. The beauty of the internet era is that we can all define what is real and what is “fake”, and as long as we are able to sustain our own bubble, we are able to live within this reality as long as we choose. For those who bristle at some of my points, I won’t have any snarky retorts so spare yourself there. I would however challenge you to ask just how long you are ok with being lied to and disrespected. Just a short cursory trip around the media, mainstream news outlets, or public records (even better!), reveals a disturbing level of inconsistency and deceit.

RIP Supreme Court, we will sorely miss you.

 

[jp55665566]

Like any judges they can be, and have been bought.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

You aint seen nuthin yet. When old Darth Vader Grinchburger dies Hell will be in session when Trump replaces her. It wont be pleasant for Demoncrats.

 

[phrodeau]

If you add up the population of the states with Senators who confirmed Neil Gorsuch, you'll end up with less than half the total population. If Brett Kavanaugh gets confirmed, he will almost certainly have the same status.

Appointed by a President who lost the popular vote, and confirmed by Senators who represent a minority of the population.

Democracy? Haven't seen it lately.

 

[oggbashan]

From the UK many people are watching with disbelief at the process. It doesn't matter to us who is appointed to the US Supreme Court but the way it is done seems ridiculous.

The UK also has a Supreme Court, but only since 2009. Almost no one in the UK could name all the members. The majority of us probably couldn't even name one member. The judges on the UK Supreme Court are appointed because of their competence and experience as judges. Once appointed they are expected to be wholly impartial.

UK Politicians cannot propose a Supreme Court judge. They can either accept the nomination made by a defined group of senior lawyers or ask for another name to be proposed. The Lord Chancellor (a member of the then current Government) has to accept either the first name suggested or the second. The appointment is made by the Queen.

A UK Supreme Court judge is appointed for life, or until they want to retire or resign. A judge could be removed by a majority of both Houses of Parliament.

There were earlier Supreme Courts for England and Wales, Scotland etc, and the functions of the previous Supreme Courts were also undertaken by the 'Law Lords' - a set of qualified judges who were members of the House of Lords and selected in a similar way to the current UK Supreme Court.

The UK's Supreme Court has existed, but not by that name, for centuries and has rarely been involved in political issues except for the process for Brexit.

 

[Bray123]

I never realised before this just how partisan the US Supreme Court is. The Judge is running for election as a Republican, apparently pushing his personal views on abortion.

His conduct has been such that he wouldn't get selected as judge of a dog show in the UK, yet the TV is showing people in tears at the prospect of him not being selected.

My own view of the allegation is that he should have shrugged his shoulders and said he had no recollection of anything, it was when they were all kids and he's not the same person. But now it's gone much further than that.

Right now I'm reminded of Caesar's wife, who was accused of adultery. The accusations were found to be unfounded but Caesar divorced her anyway because she should have been above any suspicion.

 

[Tinadeolarge]

How about we stop the whining and start acting.

Let’s move on and vote.

Remember, we are were we are because Hillary failed as a candidate to get the final vote out in a few states. She stopped campaigning, like a runner dropping the football before crossing the end zone.

Unfortunately, the Trump base gets reenergized with all this negativity.

The Supreme Court is lost for the next couple decades.

Let’s not lose our country for ever.

 

[oggbashan]

Added - UK and US judges

None of the current or proposed US Supreme Court justices would be considered for the UK Supreme Court or its predecessors.

Any UK judge who described himself/herself as supporting a political party or their policies - would be declared ineligible. As judges they are expected not only to be impartial, and have a record of considering cases according to the Law and not their personal beliefs, but to have proved themselves to their legal peers as fair and unbiased.

BUT - The UK Supreme Court does not make new law. It interprets the law as it exists. They might indicate that a law is confused, contradictory, outdated, or just wrong but they cannot amend or replace it. Only the Houses of Parliament can do that. They can set precedents - so can lower UK courts - but those precedents are derived from the lawyers' interpretation of the Act of Parliament that established the particular law.

 

[LupusDei]

The alternative of course would be... Anarchy. You cannot have both. You can have either respect for the rule of law, or anarchy; it isn’t possible to have both.

You indeed can't have both, but you can have neither. There's a thing called tribal law. It has more to do with people acting according to their conscience than savages living in the forest. I believe pure, true anarchy to be rather theoretical concept, and only possible as transitional state between systems of law in absence of enforcement. Humans naturally gravitate towards establishing some system of conduct and self governance. But that could be my national heritage (as self-sufficient stand-alone farmstead farmers) speaking.

Tribal law is extremely resilient and always present, but you may not notice it at all at least as long it's your tribe that is holding the power of governance and is enforcing its vision as the law of the land. On the other gand, although there had been cases of different and even contradictory systems layering atop one another, when masses stop feeling government as their own, it's often time for empires to fail and fall, no matter how carnage the enforcement is.

I'm old enough to have seen the fall of soviet union firsthand. That level of legal nihilism when you have to participate in black market to merely survive, is mostly incomprehensible for those who have not experienced it. But life doesn't stop, it continues and appear surprisingly normal.

A little anecdote. Could have been around 1988. A long queue forming down the street, on the rumours that fresh meat will be available in the local store. It's likely futile, but a chance. My dad (who always described pathological honestly as his greatest shortcoming, by the way) has to run another place right now, so he starts talk with the next guy in line, so he could hope to ask him to hold the spot for him. Prohibitive scarcity of just about anything is naturally a prominent theme, and my dad mention that it seems impossible to find nails lately. "Nails," the other guy say, "you are supposed to steal at work." "Well, where I work, there no nails," my dad snickering, "at most I could come upon a lose stack of paper." "You know, I could use some paper actually," the other guy allows. A week later my dad come home with two boxes of nails.

Even now, quarter of century later in our own national state it is mostly considered foolish to pay all taxes.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If you add up the population of the states with Senators who confirmed Neil Gorsuch, you'll end up with less than half the total population. If Brett Kavanaugh gets confirmed, he will almost certainly have the same status.

Appointed by a President who lost the popular vote, and confirmed by Senators who represent a minority of the population.

Democracy? Haven't seen it lately.

You do realize this country is not a democracy, right?

 

[phrodeau]

You do realize this country is not a democracy, right?

Uh huh. Got anything else?

 

[KeithD]

None of the current or proposed US Supreme Court justices would be considered for the UK Supreme Court or its predecessors.

Any UK judge who described himself/herself as supporting a political party or their policies - would be declared ineligible.

What makes you think it's different in the United States? This is the point on which many are saying Kavanaugh isn't eligible. Many aren't considering the sexual abuse claims at all in their conclusions, because there's not enough evidence on that available at this point.

What do you know about the backgrounds of current or proposed U.S. Supreme Court justices to be claiming that each, individually, has "described himself/herself as supporting a political party or their policies," Ogg? I think your sweeping generalization is out of bounds.

 

[oggbashan]

What makes you think it's different in the United States? This is the point on which many are saying Kavanaugh isn't eligible. Many aren't considering the sexual abuse claims at all in their conclusions, because there's not enough evidence on that available at this point.

What do you know about the backgrounds of current or proposed U.S. Supreme Court justices to be claiming that each, individually, has "described himself/herself as supporting a political party or their policies," Ogg? I think your sweeping generalization is out of bounds.

The composition of the US Supreme court in terms of what attitudes individual justices are likely to take on several issues is well known and frequently reported. Is that a "sweeping generalisation"? If it is, many US politicians and much of the US media makes that generalisation too.

Judge Kavanagh's stance on abortion is well known.

Any potential member of the UK Supreme Court would be considered unsuitable if they had expressed such views on any topic.

Simple Google search on Current Eight:

Roberts ''Republican'; 'considered conservative'; 'Roman Catholic'

Alito 'is a Republican'; 'Roman Catholic'

Breyer 'is a Democrat'; 'Jewish'

Ginsburg 'civil liberties' and 'women's rights'; 'Jewish'

Gorsuch 'Republican'; 'Episcopal'

Kagan 'Democrat served in Clinton administration'; 'Jewish'

Sotomayer 'appointed by President Obama; previously appointed at a lower level by President George H W Bush'; 'Roman Catholic'

Thomas 'a Republican'; 'Roman Catholic'

 

[KeithD]

I'm not as impressed as you are on your ability to pontificate on how the United States works, Ogg. I've met a lot of Englishmen like you are exhibiting in my years living abroad--mostly in countries once in the British empire where British expatriates settle to tell everyone where they still should be in the pecking order.

 

[AdrianHot]

Leftists are like cry babies. It is all fun with politics when left wing wins, but there is all cry and "sanctity lost" when they lose. Really sore losers.

Next time they will say that right wing justices are not real justices, because those are only and always left wingers (leftists said that in one of european coutries - they even keep their hands on wikipedia page to ensure that their insanity is the truth of wikipedia).

 

[oggbashan]

KeithD - you accused me of a sweeping generalisation.

That was bullshit. The composition of the US Supreme Court has been discussed here and on the GB many times.

My first two posts were about the difference between the US and UK Supreme Courts. That difference makes it difficult for UK people to understand how the process for appointing to the US court can be so politicised and so confrontational. The system and process seem to have become toxic.

A UK judge with the judicial record of Judge Kavanagh would not have had to face the public humiliation. Either he would have been nominated with the backing of fellow judges, or he would not. The name put forward would not need political endorsement because our justices are supposed to be unbiased and non-political.

The two countries' systems are different. Which is better? It doesn't matter. What does matter is that the current media and political circus around the nomination of Judge Kavanagh has been and is being reported in detail around the world. The reporting and editorial spin are detrimental to the standing of the US and its government.

That should worry you.

 

[KeithD]

Leftists are like cry babies. It is all fun with politics when left wing wins, but there is all cry and "sanctity lost" when they lose. Really sore losers.

Next time they will say that right wing justices are not real justices, because those are only and always left wingers (leftists said that in one of european coutries - they even keep their hands on wikipedia page to ensure that their insanity is the truth of wikipedia).

And the difference between these "leftists" you create and far rightists is . . . what . . . exactly?

 

[oggbashan]

I'm not as impressed as you are on your ability to pontificate on how the United States works, Ogg. I've met a lot of Englishmen like you are exhibiting in my years living abroad--mostly in countries once in the British empire where British expatriates settle to tell everyone where they still should be in the pecking order.

PS: You don't understand, do you?

What happens in the US government and administration has far more importance beyond the US than anything that happens in the UK.

Decisions taken in the US have far more impact in the UK than almost any decision taken by the UK government, possibly including Brexit. It matters to us when President Trump introduces tariffs, confronts North Korea, makes friends with President Putin...

It does NOT matter to most in the US if the UK changes its government, nor if Italy, Spain or any European country's government swings left or right.

A minor change of policy in the US can have far greater impact than a UK government policy. We are still recovering from the financial crash that had its origins in the US.

As for the UK's position in the world? Some of us recognised that we were a second-rate power during the Great War, and certainly afterwards. For others it was not until a date in 1941, not Pearl Harbor, but Hitler's invasion of the USSR. Once Germany was fighting the USSR, the UK and its Commonwealth became number two in the fighting powers. After Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US, we became number three.

 

[AdrianHot]

And the difference between these "leftists" you create and far rightists is . . . what . . . exactly?

So you call yourself a far rightists?

 

[Kirkrapine]

Well, I think both Democrats and Republicans could agree that respect for the law of the land needs to be strong regardless of party affiliation.

Why should the Pubs, when their president doesn't?

They knew there was no way to predict just how the world would change as our new nation evolved, so they engineered crucial mechanisms to prevent a tyrannical government from subverting the will of the people.

You will find many Litsters equate the will of the people with tyrannical government.

You can have either respect for the rule of law, or anarchy; it isn’t possible to have both.

Many anarchists would disagree. To hear them tell it, a stateless society is not necessarily a lawless society; public consensus, apparently, would be enough to support the law.

 

[Kirkrapine]

A minor change of policy in the US can have far greater impact than a UK government policy. We are still recovering from the financial crash that had its origins in the US.

I have read recently that there was no recession in the past 100 years that did not start in the U.S., nor has the U.S. economy been significantly affected by recessions that started elsewhere. We're the 500-pound gorilla of the global economy.

 

[oggbashan]

I have read recently that there was no recession in the past 100 years that did not start in the U.S., nor has the U.S. economy been significantly affected by recessions that started elsewhere. We're the 500-pound gorilla of the global economy.

You are, because the US dollar is the world's major trading currency, particularly for oil.

 

[Kirkrapine]

From the UK many people are watching with disbelief at the process. It doesn't matter to us who is appointed to the US Supreme Court but the way it is done seems ridiculous.

The UK also has a Supreme Court, but only since 2009. Almost no one in the UK could name all the members. The majority of us probably couldn't even name one member. The judges on the UK Supreme Court are appointed because of their competence and experience as judges. Once appointed they are expected to be wholly impartial.

UK Politicians cannot propose a Supreme Court judge. They can either accept the nomination made by a defined group of senior lawyers or ask for another name to be proposed. The Lord Chancellor (a member of the then current Government) has to accept either the first name suggested or the second. The appointment is made by the Queen.

A UK Supreme Court judge is appointed for life, or until they want to retire or resign. A judge could be removed by a majority of both Houses of Parliament.

There were earlier Supreme Courts for England and Wales, Scotland etc, and the functions of the previous Supreme Courts were also undertaken by the 'Law Lords' - a set of qualified judges who were members of the House of Lords and selected in a similar way to the current UK Supreme Court.

The UK's Supreme Court has existed, but not by that name, for centuries and has rarely been involved in political issues except for the process for Brexit.

The reason it is different here is probably because we have a written constitution.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You indeed can't have both, but you can have neither. There's a thing called tribal law. It has more to do with people acting according to their conscience than savages living in the forest. I believe pure, true anarchy to be rather theoretical concept, and only possible as transitional state between systems of law in absence of enforcement. Humans naturally gravitate towards establishing some system of conduct and self governance. But that could be my national heritage (as self-sufficient stand-alone farmstead farmers) speaking.

Tribal law is extremely resilient and always present, but you may not notice it at all at least as long it's your tribe that is holding the power of governance and is enforcing its vision as the law of the land. On the other gand, although there had been cases of different and even contradictory systems layering atop one another, when masses stop feeling government as their own, it's often time for empires to fail and fall, no matter how carnage the enforcement is.

I'm old enough to have seen the fall of soviet union firsthand. That level of legal nihilism when you have to participate in black market to merely survive, is mostly incomprehensible for those who have not experienced it. But life doesn't stop, it continues and appear surprisingly normal.

A little anecdote. Could have been around 1988. A long queue forming down the street, on the rumours that fresh meat will be available in the local store. It's likely futile, but a chance. My dad (who always described pathological honestly as his greatest shortcoming, by the way) has to run another place right now, so he starts talk with the next guy in line, so he could hope to ask him to hold the spot for him. Prohibitive scarcity of just about anything is naturally a prominent theme, and my dad mention that it seems impossible to find nails lately. "Nails," the other guy say, "you are supposed to steal at work." "Well, where I work, there no nails," my dad snickering, "at most I could come upon a lose stack of paper." "You know, I could use some paper actually," the other guy allows. A week later my dad come home with two boxes of nails.

Even now, quarter of century later in our own national state it is mostly considered foolish to pay all taxes.

You're Russian? (No offense intended if you're actually Ukrainian, etc.)

 

[Kirkrapine]

You do realize this country is not a democracy, right?

Let's not get hung up on nonsensical distinctions between "democracy" and "republic." The United States, at both the federal and state levels, is a democratic republic -- as opposed to an aristocratic republic like the Venetian Republic or the ancient Roman Republic.

There was a time when the Southern states were aristocratic republics, but that was before the Civil War.