- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Yale Law professor warns that future rule of law in US will be dictated by popular opinion
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:04 am to Billy Rocks
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:04 am to Billy Rocks
Laws change as society changes. Always has and always will. Nothing really new here except some professor is now calling it “ public opinion”
1
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:05 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Agreed. As federal clerkships are usually a pipeline to to BIgLaw, maybe it would have an effect. But BigLaw probably feels diversity pressure from their Fortune 500 clients so you’ll get a few token hires just to put out front at the client dinners and whatnot. The federal judiciary does not have that same pressure from clients.
Big law is incredibly woke, so I don't see much hope there
And by woke, I mean they're slaves to the concepts without actually believing them, much like corporate America. But over time you have to assume it'll take some root, just as we've seen with large corporations. These kids are used to living a life of complete internal contradiction and no self-awareness (attending Yale and crying about elitism and white supremacy). So the transition to doing M&A while throwing Molotovs at cop cars on the weekends is no big obstacle.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:07 am to DingLeeBerry
quote:
'The truth doesn't matter much. The game is to signal one's virtue.'
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:08 am to LSU82BILL
Hell, lately the 'law' has nothing to do with the rule of law.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:14 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
It really is a failure of civics education that people believe the SCOTUS has a role in setting law, much less doing it by what anybody (the justices or popular opinion) feels.
Two different issues and I’m not sure which one you’re addressing.
People should believe that SCOTUS has a role in creating law, because we’ve watched them do it. That’s why justice confirmations have become so acrimonious.
That’s very different from believing that SCOTUS has a proper role in creating law. A lot of people believe that, several SCOTUS justices included. It probably is an education failure when it comes to the average voter. In the case of highly educated jurists who obviously believe this I can’t ascribe it to something that innocent.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:21 am to Pettifogger
I always saw the Supreme Court as the moral/ethical endpoint for dumbshit state laws. And honestly I dont have a problem with that.
But I am afraid as the final legal authority it is absolutely susceptible popular opinion. Thats pretty much what is happening now right? the court is bifurcated in to the wing that votes for liberal public opinion and the wing that votes for conservative public opinion.
But I am afraid as the final legal authority it is absolutely susceptible popular opinion. Thats pretty much what is happening now right? the court is bifurcated in to the wing that votes for liberal public opinion and the wing that votes for conservative public opinion.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:30 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
But I am afraid as the final legal authority it is absolutely susceptible popular opinion. Thats pretty much what is happening now right? the court is bifurcated in to the wing that votes for liberal public opinion and the wing that votes for conservative public opinion.
More or less although I think in our uber politicized culture the "wings" skip over the reality that there are still a fair number of cases where down the line partisanship would dictate a con-lib split but instead you get a 7-2 or 9-0.
So the Court is still more immune than other institutions, but I wouldn't say I expect that to hold. For conservatives, I think we're probably more at risk due to someone like Roberts than we are a fairly honest progressive like Kagan.
IMO we've (conservatives) been majorly harmed by people who most probably thought leaned right but who are consumed with and driven by with personal legacy and preserving institutions for their own sake rather than truth, or more cynically, conservative ideology (ie, Roberts, James Comey, etc.). I'd characterize these people as having the luxury of misguided efforts to play peacemaker in conflicts that don't want peaceful resolution. Unfortunately people of this mindset are almost entirely on my side of the ideology.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:36 am to Pettifogger
quote:
More or less although I think in our uber politicized culture the "wings" skip over the reality that there are still a fair number of cases where down the line partisanship would dictate a con-lib split but instead you get a 7-2 or 9-0.
Because when it happens it’s typically some obscure ruling with limited impact.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:37 am to Tridentds
quote:
Laws change as society changes. Always has and always will. Nothing really new here except some professor is now calling it “ public opinion”
BS!
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:44 am to Pettifogger
quote:
I'd characterize these people as having the luxury of misguided efforts to play peacemaker in conflicts that don't want peaceful resolution.
Bingo!
But as a culture now do we really want a big winner and a big loser? Like you said even when the issue demands a bright line distinction I just dont see that forceful opinion coming that compels you to go along with it regardless of your wing.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:56 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
But as a culture now do we really want a big winner and a big loser? Like you said even when the issue demands a bright line distinction I just dont see that forceful opinion coming that compels you to go along with it regardless of your wing.
It's the inherently weak premise of the entire thing, IMO. Whether SCOTUS or a POTUS election, the reality is that we have pretty diametrically opposed contingents in this country with big swaths of the populace falling loosely behind either, and yet we have this sweepstakes-style political/judiciary set up so one group can lord over the other depending on the outcome in a given year.
It's stupid and unwieldy.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 10:59 am to Pettifogger
quote:
with big swaths of the populace falling loosely behind either
Whether you want to or not!
Posted on 3/22/22 at 11:09 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
This isn't already happening? This is exactly what leftist judges want.
Take Obamacare as an example. Obama had lawyers lobbying congress the reassurance that Obamacare was NOT a tax on the American people-- something he pledged he wouldn't do. At the very same time, other Obama attorneys were gearing up for a court battle based on the argument that Obamacare is, indeed, a tax.
The "law" was something to be manipulated and overcome to achieve an ideological result.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 11:12 am to DingLeeBerry
She'll be fired or forced to apologize then go on sabbatical to get her mind right.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 11:13 am to Pettifogger
quote:
we have this sweepstakes-style political/judiciary set up so one group can lord over the other depending on the outcome in a given year.
The legislative and executive branch do indeed swing, and the winners get to lord it over the other.
On average the left owns the judiciary, so they get their way regardless of election outcomes. At best conservative jurists play temporary defense; there is no conservative analog to something like the SCOTUS creation of gay marriage. It just doesn't exist.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 12:01 pm to DingLeeBerry
quote:
“The truth doesn’t matter much. The game is to signal one’s virtue.”
The Takeover of America's Legal System
We are in a deep crisis. Again, this is all by design.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 12:40 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
BS!
Then why do you constantly whine about Supreme Court picks? I'll tell you why. Because they have the authority to change law through I N T E R P R E T A T I O N based on their personal beliefs and opinions.
Biden has a pick being grilled on capital hill and she was picked/selected based on P O P U L A R O P I N I O N in his party...basic pandering.
If a law was a law was a law no one would give a flying frick who was on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court more likely to impact the life of you and your kids more than 2 or 3 presidents combined. They can do long lasting damage.
Posted on 3/22/22 at 12:45 pm to DingLeeBerry
quote:Few people want real “free speech.”
she was criticized for trying to calm a woke mob of students who tried to close down a free speech debate.
Most want freedom for only the speech with which they are in agreement
Posted on 3/22/22 at 1:14 pm to the_truman_shitshow
quote:
The Takeover of America's Legal System
We are in a deep crisis. Again, this is all by design.
Watching a Tsunami come.. Nothing will stop this.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News