U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#421

Post by posterboy » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #366

craftyguy wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. They set the interpretation of the law, which could literally go any which way, and is not reversible without further legislative action to repeal/amend the law. So in a way, they most definitely set law by solidifying its 'meaning'.

And then there's common law, which is essentially judge-made law. Case law is very much law. Judges are not supposed to invent law from whole cloth, sure, but they are supposed to make law in a very specific and important sense: by interpreting law (including constitutional law) when its meaning isn't clear. The fact that some judges abuse this to set policy does not mean that judges shouldn't make law -- it only mea…

The problem is one of semantics. Law is an ambiguous term and commentators have different interpretations--let's appreciate the irony for a second.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#422

Post by jfengel » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #393

kortilla wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are liberal and conservative judges, but not in the sense that lines up with party talking points. Liberal judge == living constitution

Don't downvote the parent - he's just pointing out that meanings of words depend on the context. If you look at it strictly in SCOTUS context, and use the dictionary definition of "conservative" rather than treating it as a partisan political label, a "conservative" judge is the one that tries to introduce as little innovation as possible - i.e. an adherent of originalism and textualism. Conversely, then, a "liberal"…

I'm not convinced that "originalism and textualism" is the same thing as "little innovation". The claims of originalists to divine the meaning of the text, and how that meaning applies to new objects and social structures that did not exist at the time, often strike me as remarkably innovative -- in a sense they would find pejorative.

The "conservative" judges votes align extremely well with each other and with the wishes of the political party that nominated them -- which is itself frequently not "conservative" in the sense of "conserving" something. In both cases, the claim to "conservatism" strikes me as having a lot more to do with group identity than any consistent ideology or approach.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#423

Post by keko039ndnfm » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

keko039ndnfm wrote: post #239

KorematsuFred wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their politic…

It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/ERA-Activist-Jailed...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#424

Post by DoctorOetker » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

TFortunato wrote: post #415

DoctorOetker wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big difference between programming and law is that the programmers ultimate incentive is independent of the processors incentive. In law and politics there are multiple agents each with their own incentives, so it is extremely important to uniformize the application of the law (in order to be equal before the law). That nearly all systems do provide leeway for the judge (anglosaxon common law emphasizes this and ci…

On reading, this sounds a lot to me like "trial by a jury of one's peers", only the response to the system being (choked for democratic consultations / having massive court backups and shortage of jurors) has unfortunately so far been mostly public apathy, and people being pushed into accepting plea deals / waiving their rights for a jury trial in many cases. EDIT: I dont say this to be snarky. On the contrary, the i…

the current choking of the courts (with most proceedings and exact reasonings out of view of the public) has zero effect on the bigotedness of the populace, so the populace does not change attitudes. Observe how slowly for example racism dissipates. I posit that this would dissipate much faster if a direct democracy was being chocked with back and forth punishing and nonpunishing identical counts, because then it would become full frontal what we are doing. Many of the most bigoted divisive fractions of society would simply feel how they can no longer adress more important matters as long as they have to spend time toggling their votes for settings back and forth on the basis of the in- or out-groupness of some defendant... So the bigots would become apathic to keeping up toggling those specific settings to enforce their bigotry, and get on with their lives.

Currently it is the status quo that is choking the news, which is not what I propose...

I don't read snark in your comment btw... I value your contribution

It's like alphabetization, typically after introduction of one person one vote, people become alphabetic, because by the point the populace has made it clear elitism on this facet (voting) is over, the status quo has every incentive to at least educate the populace in reading and writing...

Similarily, I expect moves toward direct democracy (by popular force) to change the behaviour of the elites and the status quo such that "the brutes who will now unavoidably rule us, should at least enjoy a higher level of education with regards to law and so on", and asking questions about law, finding answers, navigating the law, ... will become standard course curricula for the bulk of the populace in high school...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#425

Post by int_19h » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 12:12 AM UTC

cat199 wrote: post #416

wallace_f wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea... But I think this comment puts them in better light than perhaps is deserved. There are arguments SCOTUS are not defenders of the constitution. Look at Clarence Thomas's dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich, where somehow SCOTUS defended the Fed's oppressing someone for growing their own medical marijuana... In a state with legal medical marijuana. There is no constitutional basis for that. Using the Commerce Clause is…

> In a state with legal medical marijuana umm.. not familiar with this case, but: from a federal position there is no such thing as legal marijuana, and from a constitutional position federal law trumps state law - which is not to say i disagree about the sheer human folly of regulating the existence of plants via legislation.

Federal law trumps state law when they're in conflict. There's no conflict between federal law saying that it's illegal, and state law not saying that it's illegal. And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal.

The case itself wasn't about whether federal law trumps state law, though. It was about whether the federal law in question is constitutional in the first place - i.e. that the federal government has authority granted to it by the Constitution to prohibit a person growing marijuana plants for their own private consumption (i.e. not for sale, and especially not for sale across state lines, which would then obviously be "interstate commerce"). The plaintiff was arguing that since it's personal use and not interstate commerce, it's out of scope of the federal law. The reason why state law was relevant is to show the exact nature of harm suffered - if not for federal law, the plaintiff would have access to medical marijuana to alleviate his pain.

SCOTUS upheld an earlier decision from Wickard v. Filburn, which basically states that any production and consumption is "interstate commerce", because it affects market prices - if you grow something for your own use, you're not buying that something on the market, the reasoning went. I suggest reading about both decisions, just to see how ridiculous some of our legal reasoning is. And then keep in mind that those decisions are the only thing that makes many federal laws constitutional - it's not just drug prohibitions, but e.g. the Civil Rights Acts.

So both the left and the right have a stake in maintaining this interpretation - both want to be have broad regulatory authority on the federal level, just for different reasons. It doesn't make it any less flawed or ridiculous, but I wouldn't consider it an example of partisan court bias.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#426

Post by int_19h » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #422

int_19h wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't downvote the parent - he's just pointing out that meanings of words depend on the context. If you look at it strictly in SCOTUS context, and use the dictionary definition of "conservative" rather than treating it as a partisan political label, a "conservative" judge is the one that tries to introduce as little innovation as possible - i.e. an adherent of originalism and textualism. Conversely, then, a "liberal"…

I'm not convinced that "originalism and textualism" is the same thing as "little innovation". The claims of originalists to divine the meaning of the text, and how that meaning applies to new objects and social structures that did not exist at the time, often strike me as remarkably innovative -- in a sense they would find pejorative. The "conservative" judges votes align extremely well with each other and with the w…

That's because we actually do have a partisan SCOTUS, with all that entails. Words like "originalism" and "textualism" - or "living constitution" for that matter - are mostly thrown around to justify certain partisan positions, and ignored with others. I wouldn't consider Scalia to have been an originalist, for example.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#427

Post by wallace_f » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

jcranberry wrote: post #410

wallace_f wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea... But I think this comment puts them in better light than perhaps is deserved. There are arguments SCOTUS are not defenders of the constitution. Look at Clarence Thomas's dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich, where somehow SCOTUS defended the Fed's oppressing someone for growing their own medical marijuana... In a state with legal medical marijuana. There is no constitutional basis for that. Using the Commerce Clause is…

There's a quote right in the Wikipedia article which talks about the practical reasoning and historical basis for the decision: > Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 193…

I am aware of Wickard v Filburn as it is regarded as a particularly, historically bad ruling, and obviously set precedent for this case.

Did you actually read this? Have you read any parts of the constitution?

Federal powers are constitutionally enumerated, and those which are not are reserved for the states.

The premise of this discussion you've quoted here -- that the feds have the duty to centralize command and control authority over modest home production of plants for one's own consumption -- is obviously not the intent of the constitution, nor is it remotely American, nor remotely consistent with liberty.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#428

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 2:21 AM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #388

chidg wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems likely the person you are replying to has english as a non-first language and may be using this phrase incorrectly.

Maybe. In Australia, 'bleeding heart' used by people on the right to describe people on the left who act with conscience, ethics, compassion or recommend a course of such acts. It's a term of abuse, because they think such actions and desires must be pretense, as the right doesn't feel those things themselves. (The right has and doesn't want others to have, a position that hardens the heart.) I took the phrase in tha…

Don’t have data about the right in Australia, but in the U.S., the term arises due to the prevalence of virtue signaling by left leaning Hollywood that doesn’t align with the reality of all the statistics pointing to far greater levels of charity as a percentage of income/wealth exhibited by those on the ‘right’.

This mismatch results in some of this derisive language in the U.S.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#429

Post by yesenadam » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

AlexB138 wrote: post #414

yesenadam wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. In Australia, 'bleeding heart' used by people on the right to describe people on the left who act with conscience, ethics, compassion or recommend a course of such acts. It's a term of abuse, because they think such actions and desires must be pretense, as the right doesn't feel those things themselves. (The right has and doesn't want others to have, a position that hardens the heart.) I took the phrase in tha…

> Maybe. In Australia, 'bleeding heart' used by people on the right to describe people on the left who act with conscience, ethics, compassion or recommend a course of such acts. It's a term of abuse, because they think such actions and desires must be pretense, as the right doesn't feel those things themselves. (The right has and doesn't want others to have, a position that hardens the heart.) I took the phrase in t…

Well, you disagree with me, and call my opinion 'bias', i.e. 'biased'. (Leaving aside the gratuitous 'laughably'.) You presumably see yourself as 'not biased'. (Nice work if you can get it.) I think 'bias' used like that doesn't make a lot of sense. Every person speaking their mind can be called 'biased' by someone who doesn't agree, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it. It's primarily a way of disguising (to yourself) that you're saying "You're wrong and I'm right".

Yes, 'suggesting the targets lack reason', which if they had it, I suppose, would make them more in agreement with the criticizer. (In this neo-con-ruled world people who use the term 'bleeding heart' see themselves as 'realists', i.e. follow the pronouncements of the local economist, think-tank, party-back-room guru etc without much considering the actual effects on people or the world. Money, or votes, is the prize. Everywhere is obsession with 'efficiency' and 'growth'. It's hardly noticed how many people hate their work, or that growth is unsustainable, or what's happening to the planet. We have no idea where we're going but are obsessed with getting there efficiently. But that's rant for another place..)

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#430

Post by amanaplanacanal » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 3:55 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #417

kortilla wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary And that’s exactly what we got. I urge you to look into what the legislative branch does and look into constitutional amendments. The system changes all of the time. Based on your description of the GOP, you sound upset that the country isn’t more socialist. That’s hardly related…

Reply to sibling since it’s dead: >Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public? This isn’t a direct democracy. The law reflects the super majority of the representatives/senators or the majority of the representatives/senators and the president. The entire purpose of that is to prevent small majorities from steamrolling in laws. 60% for legalization or whatever topic you want isn’t enough to make a fede…

On top of that is the partisan system in congress. Even legislation which could garner a majority of the senate will not be given a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the party in power.

And then even on top of that, the majority leader won't allow a vote unless he thinks the president will support it.

So there are multiple levels something has to go through before it can even get a vote.