<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Basically agree with you. (Justice Marshall decided that courts have the power to rule that laws violate the constitution.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">I think that in some countries a court that finds a law somehow invalid is obligated to suggest changes that would make it valid -- and not just throw it out. (Perhaps that's the same thing you read.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Drawing a line between policy and legal issues would be one way to "harden" the courts against overt political interference. But can it be done in a way that would be widely accepted and then implemented?</div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font><u style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16.5px;line-height:20px"><br></u></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font><u style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16.5px;line-height:20px"> </u></font><span style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16.5px;line-height:24.75px"> </span>-- Russ Abbott <br>Professor, Computer Science<br>California State University, Los Angeles<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 9:43 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com">gepropella@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I've forgotten what venue it was. But someone made the argument that elsewhere (other countries), courts don't have the power to strike down entire laws, and that extensive power is not inherent in our laws, either ... that it was somehow more convention than written in stone. They made the argument that John Roberts understands this, and understands that if the populace begins to reject the legitimacy of SCOTUS decisions, a flood of techniques could be used to degrade the courts' authority (much like the trends in the "unitary executive" have degraded Congress' authority).<br>
<br>
It seems like that argument is relevant to at least one of your questions.<br>
<br>
For me, until Kavanaugh, I'd never really realized how political the SCOTUS actually is [⛧]. The membership is pretty much locked down by the Senate. And the Senate is the rural/right bastion, the core representation problem. We complain a lot about the electoral college. But it's the structure of the Senate that's the real problem for progressivism. So, for me, they've lost all patina of "objectivity" at this point. They're as vapidly political/partisan as the House. We may as well admit this loss of credibility and find a way to "harden" it against abuse. Of course, the Rs don't "govern". So we're left in the unfortunate position of relying on the Ds to do it, if it'll be done at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
[⛧] Yes, I know. All the signs were there my entire life. What can I say? I'm a moron. It took a Frat boy being confirmed to make me realize it.<br>
<br>
On 10/13/20 9:18 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:<br>
> Amy Coney Barrett said that judges should stick to legal issues and leave policymaking to legislatures. <br>
> <br>
> "A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results he does not like. Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try," <br>
> <br>
> Let's assume she is intellectually honest and will do her best to live by this distinction. Do you think that's possible? How would you draw a line between legal issues and policy decisions? How could a court refuse to deal with cases that seem to require them to make policy decisions? Do you think a framework for courts could be established along these lines that would widely accepted?<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ<br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br>
FRIAM-COMIC</a> <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br>
</blockquote></div>