I’m just waiting to see if under those conditions, the justices voting to overrule are saying the law is unconstitutional or constitutionally infirm, and if the latter, if that term is super-duper special and exclusive to them only because it may or may not matter in some way but it’d sure be wrong if some ordinary person said a law was constitutionally infirm because that would prove to one billion percent certainty that they are Hitler.
What an opportunity for a great compromise! Let’s totally do voter ID for everybody, in tandem with an voter registration outreach program, spread across the entire nation! Get the League of Women Voters on board, people like that! Put legit voter ID in everybody’s hands, put our Republican citizen’s minds at ease and simultaneously expand our voting rolls with one hundred percent legit voters! Could be millions of newly registered citizens! Given the Pubbies wild enthusiasm for civic virtue, they will be totally on board! Wouldn’t cost much, use lots of eager volunteers, they’ll fucking* love *it!..
Me? Tequila and bongwater, why do you ask?
This same argument would say that the African Americans of the 60’s had no basis to complain about the Jim Crow style election laws.
Bricker equivalents from 1964: Disenfranchising African Americans was the way the system should work. Poll taxes and literacy tests were supported by the majority, (or at least the majority who could vote), and upheld by the courts. Just because you believe that these laws are unjust doesn’t mean that everyone does, and until you can get a majority to agree that your rights have been violated, they haven’t. Sit down, shut up and quit complaining or trying to convince me otherwise.
Sure. There are two ideas in tension: (1) We are a country in which sovereign power is exercised by We, The People, through our elected representatives, and (2) Our laws will be the fairest and wisest possible.
You’re absolutely right: earlier instances of our exercise of democracy did not always produce ideal results, and it’s virtually certain that some scheme in policy that you now favor will be seen as hopelessly outdated and unwise.
But as the saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We might well have a better, wiser, fairer government if we were ruled by a wise, good, fair, and just absolute monarch. But the problem is finding such a person.
So - yes, the system of majority rule produces less than optimal results. What’s the better system that can replace it and produce better results?
You can smooth off many of the rougher edges with the occasional “activist” judge who’s prepared to say “Wait a sec, this doesn’t make sense…”
So, “unconstitutional” vs “constitutionally infirm”… distinct in their meanings or uses?
First says its dead, second says it maybe oughta be.
Educating voters and advocating for positions that make the country stronger, and ensuring that everyone has a chance to make their voice heard in the political process.
Civil rights didn’t come about because it was just time for civil rights to come about, they came about because people worked together to make them come about. They advocated for legislation, they advocated for legislators, they advocated on issues, and marched in the streets, bringing attention to the issues they cared about.
And a wise king could really smooth the edges.
Not really, no.
So what you’re saying is we should switch to a monarchy!
No, wait, that’s dumb. What you’re saying is that because there’s an imaginary theoretical optimal state that can’t possibly be reached, any other real approach that is less optimal than the theoretical optimal is worthless and can be disregarded. Rhetorically speaking.
Is that what you’re proposing? I thought that was what you routinely accused us of wanting.
Your earlier musing tried to suggest otherwise:
Chapter 1:
Liberal says “this is unconstitutional.”
Liberal says “this is unconstitutional.”
Liberal says “this is unconstitutional.”
Liberal says “this is unconstitutional.”
Liberal says “this is unconstitutional.”
Liberal says “this is unconstitutional.”
Chapter 2:
Impressionable person hears the repetition, and through the aggregate effect of rhetor trickery starts to think that this is exactly equivalent to a Supreme Court Justice saying “this is constitutionally infirm”, then lets this mistaken belief guide their vote for a president who will likely appoint Justices who will say exactly that. Or something.
Epilogue/Conclusion:
Liberals should shut up, lest hypothetical stupid people get mistaken impressions.
Not saying that either.
As I look back in memory, I’m trying to recall if you every were able to summarize any point I’v ever made. It seems to me that when you attempt to summarize my points, you almost inevitably choose a construction that’s not only in error, but positively uncharitable.
Why do you do that?
What I’m saying here is that the Wise King exemplifies the types of problems that occur on a lesser scale with the Wise Unelected Lifetime Appointment Judge. In both cases, the results in given cases may come closer to optimal than pure messy majority democracy, but at the cost of eroding democracy.
I’m only going to endorse as correct four sequential words from your post; the remainder are not an accurate summary of what I’ve said or what I sometimes wish.
So you recognize the truth in “you routinely accused us”. Good.
Usually for one of two reasons:
-
Your arguments have a natural conclusion that’s both unstated and abhorrent. I simplify and clarify in an attempt to strip away the obfuscation that’s hiding that conclusion.
-
You’re using a shitty rhetorical device. This time I outright stated which rhetorical device I thought you were using - but I made an error. It sounded like you were trying to paint the benevolent monarch as a good thing. You weren’t. So your rhetorical device this time was simple exaggeration/bad analogy, instead.
This would only apply if a supreme court justice did it, right? Lower court judges are not without oversight.
It’s also worth noting that the USA is quite deliberately not a true democracy; it’s a highly-eroded ‘representative democracy’. This erosion is by design. The theoretical appointed judge was appointed by somebody elected, which means that the idea that he would be making godlike declarations from on high until he’s struck down by meteor or assassin was, indirectly, decided upon by the collective voice of the people.
I figured it for as blatant an example of a strawman as I’ve seen lately. If you dare to recognize the value of judicial oversight (and of course let’s not forget its potential harm as well), then obviously it’s a good debate tactic to create the strawman position of accusing you of wanting a benign dictatorship.
If resorting to a “rhetor’s trick” means using a persuasive-sounding but actually fallacious tactic, Bricker just gave us a fairly obvious example.
OK, crappy debate tactics.
But overshadowed 10x by the forthright answer to my question. For which I am very grateful and which I believe is well worth calling out as a good thing. Thanks.
Sorta.
There are lots of federal circuits and lots of judges who sit on them, but only one Supreme Court, so it’s kind of like cicadas: predator satiation guarantees the survival of the brood.
Sure, but the point of periodic elections is to allow the electorate to decide, based on performance, whether to continue with the rascal or throw the rascal out.
For this reason, i say that judges should not attempt substantive changes in the law. Their role should be akin to umpires: they don’t make new rules, but apply the existing rules to the facts that come before them.
Fortunately, in case where the rules are in conflict, there’s been a general trend to give “the tie to the runner” in the rough direction of more freedom and more fairness.
Was musing further on this during my drive home:
How is it a rhetor’s trick to say “X is unconstitutional” as a means to imply that “X is constitutionally infirm” if there’s no real distinction between the two states?
You might be able to clarify this significantly if you would actually provide an example of what it is you’re objecting to, unless of course the vague accusation against persons unnamed using methods uncited was itself a mere rhetor’s trick, an attempt to denigrate your opponents using vague language unsupported by any actual instance.