The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Your example about liberals trying to maintain the right to choose while conservatives try to change it paints a picture where liberals are trying to preserve what's in place or works or whatever the appropriate term is, while conservatives are the ones trying to change things. Maybe that just wasn't a good example to illustrate what you were trying to say.

Maybe so, though I would argue that in that case liberals are not trying to keep choice because it is established but because it is the "right" policy. This is an important distinction because by my understanding a true Conservative would not favor a disruptive change to a new policy even if he preferred that policy, because the social cost of change is weighted very heavily by Conservatives. It was Confucius (maybe?) who said "better a thousand years of tyranny than one night of chaos."

What I was arguing in the first place, against Scooby, was that liberals are not necessary more willing to compromise. In my mind this is a defense of conservatism because 97% of the time compromise is the best way forward in a democratic society. That's why I was very surprised when you said I was painting a "liberal good, conservative bad" picture. Quite the opposite.

I think the main confusion is that flexible-inflexible is simply a different dimension than liberal-conservative.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The "conserve" in Conservatism is about conserving what has worked in the past and what has a decent record of stability. It is about managing order. Hence, conservatives tend to value religious traditions and established social hierarchies. That does not mean Conservatives always fight every change, but the change has to be carefully managed so people who have built up large investments, whether those are economic or emotional, are disrupted as little as possible. The opposite is the utopian revolutionary who believes his great new idea will finally save humanity from itself, and who doesn't care what traditions he uproots in making that happen.

This is a fine definition and corresponds to the dual-axis system that had been suggested elsewhere. The "conservative - radical" axis on "how we go about doing things."

It only got confusing in his example since "human life is sacred" is a pretty basic "conservative" value going back quite a long time.....leave out the examples and this description above is pretty mainstream.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Maybe so, though I would argue that in that case liberals are not trying to keep choice because it is established but because it is the "right" policy. This is an important distinction because by my understanding a true Conservative would not favor a disruptive change to a new policy even if he preferred that policy, because the social cost of change is weighted very heavily by Conservatives. It was Confucius (maybe?) who said "better a thousand years of tyranny than one night of chaos."

What I was arguing in the first place, against Scooby, was that liberals are not necessary more willing to compromise. In my mind this is a defense of conservatism because 97% of the time compromise is the best way forward in a democratic society. That's why I was very surprised when you said I was painting a "liberal good, conservative bad" picture. Quite the opposite.

I think the main confusion is that flexible-inflexible is simply a different dimension than liberal-conservative.

I think that because you think the liberal approach to the issue is "right" that you end up with a fundamentally different overall view of what would be good, and less-disruptive for society. A conservative view would be that abortion couldn't be more disruptive for its millions of victims, or for the long term emotional/psychological/physical consequences on those involved. Not trying to argue that point here, just that depending on which side you view as "right" heavily shades what you would think would be more or less disruptive to society.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't like this trend (admittedly it might not really be a trend, I don't know) of dissents being read from the bench. Seems childish to me.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The idea that every person is an atomistic, rugged individualist who should have no interference from anybody in the pursuit of his own desires is a very new notion.

Perhaps it's new in the finer details, but I seem to recall that anarchists were setting off bombs and assassinating presidents back in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Let the spinmeisters begin.

You were late by one post. SCOTUS didn't uphold it so much as say it was too early to make the call, and we'll see how it plays out. At most they said it wasn't facially unconstitutional, but they clearly were worried it might become unconstitutional as applied, depending on Arizona's next move.

True, though we don't know if that's the case here, do we?

All in all my first reaction is that this is a win for Obama and big federalism. Sounds like the one provision that was upheld by the Court can be attacked in other ways to try to fully gut the legislation.

Yep, pretty much right. I'll go ahead and give myself a pat on the back for calling the preemption argument FTW.

It is entertaining reading the other side, though. At least one commentator on scotusblog is actually saying this was a win for Arizona.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It is entertaining reading the other side, though. At least one commentator on scotusblog is actually saying this was a win for Arizona.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to States' Efforts to Fight Illegal Immigration
OPINION: Court Gives States Green Light to Follow Arizona's Lead
Brewer: Ruling a 'Victory'
Obama 'Pleased'
Analysts: Immigration Ruling Gives Romney an 'Opportunity'

And that's just on Fox' home page.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You were late by one post. SCOTUS didn't uphold it so much as say it was too early to make the call, and we'll see how it plays out. At most they said it wasn't facially unconstitutional, but they clearly were worried it might become unconstitutional as applied, depending on Arizona's next move.



Yep, pretty much right. I'll go ahead and give myself a pat on the back for calling the preemption argument FTW.

It is entertaining reading the other side, though. At least one commentator on scotusblog is actually saying this was a win for Arizona.

Arizona won the enforcement part, but it looks like they're going to lose there too via regulation (why am I not surprised). Apparently ICE and DHS have now said that only ICE can arrest an illegal and they will do so only if the illegal is involved in a felony arrest.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Supreme Court Deals Blow to States' Efforts to Fight Illegal Immigration
OPINION: Court Gives States Green Light to Follow Arizona's Lead
Brewer: Ruling a 'Victory'
Obama 'Pleased'
Analysts: Immigration Ruling Gives Romney an 'Opportunity'

And that's just on Fox' home page.

So everybody won and everybody lost. Sounds like a great ruling to me!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I read that intrade has the odds of the mandate in PPACA being declared unconstitutional at 1:4 (i.e., 79.9% have the mandate overturned).

I saw an intriguing perspective: the Court will enjoin the law from taking effect and ask for additional briefs on severability to be heard during its next term (i.e., defer the final ruling until after the election). In other words, the Court will say that the mandate itself is unconstitutional, but they cannot rule beyond that on the rest of the law without more information.

That would be something, eh?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Given the Montana ruling it seems clear we have an activist court. Funny it seems that way since it's one of the most conservative courts ever assembled.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

At least one commentator on scotusblog is actually saying this was a win for Arizona.

It probably is a pretty big victory for Arizona. They just don't know it yet.

The feds, whose actual job it is to protect our borders, have found themselves caught in the political quagmire that is the immigration problem. The Supreme Court just saved Arizona from their own miserable fail on the issue.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I read that intrade has the odds of the mandate in PPACA being declared unconstitutional at 1:4 (i.e., 79.9% have the mandate overturned).

I saw an intriguing perspective: the Court will enjoin the law from taking effect and ask for additional briefs on severability to be heard during its next term (i.e., defer the final ruling until after the election). In other words, the Court will say that the mandate itself is unconstitutional, but they cannot rule beyond that on the rest of the law without more information.

That would be something, eh?

That would be interesting, but what would be the "additional information"?

BTW, are you an attorney? Your remarks on these cases seem (to a layman) sophisticated and well-informed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It probably is a pretty big victory for Arizona. They just don't know it yet.

The feds, whose actual job it is to protect our borders, have found themselves caught in the political quagmire that is the immigration problem. The Supreme Court just saved Arizona from their own miserable fail on the issue.

Are you saying it's a win for the state in the long run since it torpedoes Brewer? I can see that. Brewer may well enjoy the same reputation as Orval Faubus in 20 years.

According to the Beeb the ruling also kills several copycat state laws, e.g. Alabama.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Are you saying it's a win for the state in the long run since it torpedoes Brewer? I can see that. Brewer may well enjoy the same reputation as Orval Faubus in 20 years.

Maybe, but it's a pretty conservative state.

I think it's a win because trying to address immigration issues isn't easy; it's expensive; it will be politically popular with your average, white american but unpopular with some of your other constituents (hispanics) and business leaders who depend upon the cheap labor and will be working behind the scenes to thwart the popular push. If the law had been upheld in it's entirety, the authorities would face a constant barrage of news stories about citizen hispanics harassed by cops, of crying children separated from siblings, parents or other family members.

Those aren't good reasons for avoiding the issue, but are the reason the issue doesn't provide a ready-made, cheap, easy solution that will be popular with everyone important to you as a politician. Sometimes courts can save us from ourselves. If the federal government hasn't figured out how to solve the problem yet I find it amusing Arizona or Alabama musters up the hubris to say they've got it figured out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If the law had been upheld in it's entirety, the authorities would face a constant barrage of news stories about citizen hispanics harassed by cops, of crying children separated from siblings, parents or other family members.

They may still have to deal with those stories for a while because "Show Us Your Papers" was upheld (at least provisionally).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Maybe, but it's a pretty conservative state. If the law had been upheld in it's entirety, the authorities would face a constant barrage of news stories about citizen hispanics harassed by cops, of crying children separated from siblings, parents or other family members.

Could be...but there's plenty of areas for bad press including shutting down hispanic ethnic courses and lax gun laws coupled with stand your ground at bars.

Likewise, the ruling itself is plenty of bad press for them today in the sense that it continues to postion the state as an outlyer with policy to be added to that of the past such as the rebuke of national MLK recognition.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

They may still have to deal with those stories for a while because "Show Us Your Papers" was upheld (at least provisionally).

Love the last phrase. Interesting commentary on it. http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24525

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Maybe, but it's a pretty conservative state.

I think it's a win because trying to address immigration issues isn't easy; it's expensive; it will be politically popular with your average, white american but unpopular with some of your other constituents (hispanics) and business leaders who depend upon the cheap labor and will be working behind the scenes to thwart the popular push. If the law had been upheld in it's entirety, the authorities would face a constant barrage of news stories about citizen hispanics harassed by cops, of crying children separated from siblings, parents or other family members.

Those aren't good reasons for avoiding the issue, but are the reason the issue doesn't provide a ready-made, cheap, easy solution that will be popular with everyone important to you as a politician. Sometimes courts can save us from ourselves. If the federal government hasn't figured out how to solve the problem yet I find it amusing Arizona or Alabama musters up the hubris to say they've got it figured out.

Yup, those feds are just so smart that nobody at the state level could ever solve a problem the feds haven't fixed. Their track record is unblemished.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Yup, those feds are just so smart that nobody at the state level could ever solve a problem the feds haven't fixed. Their track record is unblemished.

Don't kid yourself. The feds can't do anything right!