Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (178857)	1/8/2012 5:48:00 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541707

>>This is just an example of one way procedure can trump substance.; there are many others<< My comment would be that the question of having standing to bring a suit is a substantive matter in itself. But yes, I see that in many cases the actual bone of contention between the parties is never even discussed because some sort of procedural matter stops the trial before that happens.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (178857)	1/8/2012 8:55:40 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541707

Often in the law one doesn't get to argue their substantive case if they are procedurally incorrect. No question, that's correct. But you and I and Allen are discussing all sorts of aspects of the case, including the substantive. I think we've established, in this conversation, that legal opinions are not the product of bias/point of view/whatever alone; and that more than procedural questions are at stake. But the third element, political, is likely the determinative, whether or not any body actually files a case. The congressional Reps may well decide that filing a case will only give the Main Street/Wall Street issue more visibility via the publicity about the Cordray nomination, more visibility than they would like.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (178857)	1/8/2012 10:27:39 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541707

I think the recess appointment is part of a larger trend (primarily started by Republcian's) to render the law an existential system, so they can manipulate it, rather than one based on the constitution and case law (which is ironic, if one thinks about it). This trend really started with Clintons bullshit impeachment. The law was bastardized to the point whereby he was found guilty of a charge that was never enforced and a ton of other gray areas usually never touched. They took the law into gray areas everyone had been avoiding heretofore because there are no good answers, so everyone before avoided them. Then in 2000 Roberts told the Republican's we can steal this election and get away with it. Scalia led the charge and they got away with it and Roberts is now chief justice. Then when bush was elected he had Fredo make up laws he wanted to break. And the whole thing has escalated to the point where government is now moribund and the only way to make things work is to use the same existential tactics the right wing is using i.e. move into the gray areas with exectuive power. At the core, all law is existential. And it will be interesting to see how the modern political system deals with this fact. What is going on now is that both parties are trying to pack the judicial branch with liberals or conservatives because they know judges at the highest levels make political rulings nearly as often as they make case law rulings. Just look at the surpreme court rulings 5/4, 5/4,5/4..