Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 457 posts

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

#231

Post by dragonwriter »

tynpeddler wrote: post #195
nwallin wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate personhood has a very long history in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

people =/= person. All people are persons, but not all persons are people. I enjoy Stewart, Colbert and Oliver as much as the next person (vernacular usage, not legal), but they've done a lot of damage to the national discourse on this topic.

> All people are persons, but not all persons are people

People is a plural of person (persons is also a plural of persons); all persons are people just as all people are persons, the two terms are in this use synonyms (people also has a singular use.)

Not all people or persons are part of “the people” as that is used in some Constitutional provisions, but 14th Amendment due process rests on the definition of “person”, not “the people”, and in any case the Supreme Court has found that the distinguishing feature of “the people” is attachment to the national community, not natural (as opposed to artificial/juridical) personhood, so U.S. corporations are, Constitutionally, all of “persons”, “people”, and included within “the people”.

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

#232

Post by KorematsuFred »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

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 political masters or they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India can only have "retired judge" as their chief.

Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that need attention too.

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

#233

Post by KorematsuFred »

milesvp wrote: post #204
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

Yes actually. The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. Also by limiting their ruling to the narrowest ruling they can, they keep decisions as local as possible. Courts handle exceptional circumstances, and it’s important they not rule too broadly, else there can be huge overarching unintended side effects of their ruling. The parallel in programming would be some god class that handles every e…

That is excellent analogy. This then boils down to globalism vs fractal localism.

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

#234

Post by dragonwriter »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.

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

#235

Post by discordance »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Minus the odd occasion of sexual assault [1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...

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

#236

Post by KorematsuFred »

thatoneuser wrote: post #224
sathackr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires. Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

Yes good point. Kavanaugh's appointment showed us that if you aspire to be a SC judge you better make sure you behave well right from your teens. Some dubious instant from 30 years ago might come to hurt you.

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

#237

Post by School-Cotton »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #223
da_chicken wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is it, yes.

For reference, in forma pauperis means "in the shape of a poor man"; pockets aren't mentioned. As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't have pockets and so there would be no way to express the concept in Latin.

Latin was the international language of Europe for almost a thousand years after the collapse of the Roman Empire, during which time many scientific advancements were made. There are plenty of Latin words for things that didn't exist in Antiquity.

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

#238

Post by keko039ndnfm »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

The second statement is false.

How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win.

That eliminates anyone that can’t raise money.

And Kavanaugh’s nomination casts doubt on the third statement. You can be a vile POS, but become a SCOTUS judge so long as you’re networked with the right people.

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

#239

Post by keko039ndnfm »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #232
sathackr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

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

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

#240

Post by dragonwriter »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #236
thatoneuser wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires. Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

Yes good point. Kavanaugh's appointment showed us that if you aspire to be a SC judge you better make sure you behave well right from your teens. Some dubious instant from 30 years ago might come to hurt you.

The sexual assault allegations addressed by the reopening of his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court seem to have made everyone forget the fairly blatant perjury about his role in Bush Admin torture policy in his confirmations hearings for the D.C. Circuit that was addressed (but let slide) in the first round of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Post reply on HN