6 ms·

Isn't hierarchy intrinsic to power?

• kd0amg 7y ago
  What's the hierarchical ordering of Congress, SCOTUS, and the White House?
  • sidlls 7y ago
    There are very clear hierarchies in Congress (Speaker/Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Committee Chairs) and White House (President, Vice President, Cabinet). There is no power structure in SCOTUS: each of the justices is equal and has nobody to answer to. There are likely shadow organizations in the Congress and White House with their own (unpublished) hierarchy, but probably not in the SCOTUS due to its size and the implicit potency inherent in being a Justice.
    • papln 7y ago
      SCOTUS is a nearly-pure democracy. Every issue of substance is put to a vote, and everyone has freedom to act individually in anything not put to vote, along with ample funding for their desires (law clerks for work, and indivual pay for personal perks). (Namely, Q&A in session, and what they write in their opinions.) Their scope of power is sufficiently limited that favor-trading isn't very important. All that remains are the minor traditional formalities of when and where they meet and how they dress. When your group grows beyond 9 people, that gets harder.
      • pmyteh 7y ago
        The internal politics are still interesting, though. "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Woodward and Armstrong looked (amongst other things) at why Nixon's new Chief Justice Warren Burger seemed unable to push the court in a more consistently conservative direction despite more conservative membership. Part of the conclusion was that he just wasn't that great at playing the internal political games required to stay in control. Incidentally, the main source for that book was eventually revealed as one of the other Justices, Potter Stewart. It's a fascinating read.
    • howard941 7y ago
      Although Justices need not answer to anyone at all with perhaps the exception of defending themselves in their impeachment proceeding, the Chief does have some powers and duties, implicit ones such as designating authorship of a majority opinion when in the majority, and explicit ones such as administratively leading all of the Article II and III courts. The aclu's page is evenhanded and may be of interest. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/role-chief-justice https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/role-chief-justice
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • fullshark 7y ago
    SCOTUS > White House > Congress but I get your point.
    • DanGarthwaite 7y ago
      Only by convention and precedent. FDR's threats to pack the court certainly influenced them and if implemented would have subverted them.
      • icebraining 7y ago
        FDR couldn't implement that by himself, though; the bill had to be approved by Congress.
      • Retra 7y ago
        Convention and precedent (and tradition) are also forms of hierarchical power. Those who assert them in the course of making a decision exercise power over those who intend to deny them.
    • papln 7y ago
      SCOTUS <> White House <> Congress That's the 3 branches of government with its checks and balances.
      • Retra 7y ago
        Some of those checks and balances never get used.
  • pjc50 7y ago
    The President appoints SCOTUS, so has the final say there. The critical fight was done by FDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil... Congress and President have, as I understand it, a mutual veto - but in the case where both are controlled by the same party, they tend to defer to the party organisation, which in turn defers to the President. Where they don't, you get shutdowns.
    • icebraining 7y ago
      The President already appointed the SCOTUS before FDR, per the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution.
  • SkyBelow 7y ago
    President tends to dictate congress when they are popular and congress is of the same party. While there can be some push back, it will become costly come election time. SCOTUS has strongly defined limits on what they can do, but given they are made up of picks by the President and approved by congress the shape of the SCOTUS changes depending upon whom is in power when the existing members leave. The President is generally immune to congress until they do something that gets enough congressional support for impeachment. This has proven extremely hard to do so far. The President also gets significant say over any issue that doesn't strongly unify congress. Thus, for an issue that is popular in congress and unpopular with the President, but not popular enough in congress to override a veto, the hierarchy does President > Congress (a > b means a is above b). SCOTUS almost never gets involved when it comes to passing laws. When it comes to an issue that is popular enough congress is willing to override a veto and which is popular enough with voters that congress going against the President on it isn't a threat, then congress > President. I don't think anyone is claiming there is a simple hierarchy that consistently applies regardless of scenario. Even in a classical monarchy the hierarchy can shift for extreme enough scenarios.
• ravenstine 7y ago
  You can have webs of power, but I've found that organizations that work this way have a lot of dysfunction. That's not to say that a hierarchy can't be dysfunctional, but I do think that well constructed hierarchies without tyrants are preferable to their "webbed" equivalent, since webs are almost always inefficient and serve to mask a lot of the power for the sake of a superficial form of equality or equity. I won't name names, but a company that I worked for was very web-like, which felt good at first because it seems more "fair" or democratic, but it lead to constant confusion, infighting, communication failures, etc., and I discovered that it lead to two forms of employees: hogs that managed to eat more from the trough through clever maneuvering, and "homer simpsons" who figured out they could be lazy and not suffer serious consequences since their title was nebulous and the chain of command was diffuse(an individual with poor performance didn't reflect that badly on a superior). The team that I worked on functioned mostly as a web, and that actually worked well because we were only 6 people at most, but an entire company functioning as a web is a nightmare.
  • narnianal 7y ago
    you assume that organizations with inofficial power webs only have official goals? The inofficial goals might strive very well while the official organisation struggles. For instance I assume even if McDonalds shops struggle financially McDonalds itself is still quite happily collecting rent from them.
    • ravenstine 7y ago
      Oh, I don't assume that, and you bring up a very good point that goes over most people's heads. In fact, it reminds me of how I learned that most organizations of appreciable size don't care much about efficiency. When things become more efficient, it not only rocks the boat, but people can be put out of work; once the cash-cow has been established, people want things to stay the same, lest they lose access to the udders of said cow. This is despite the fact that such an organization will publicly value "innovation", "creativity" and "hard work".
• McWobbleston 7y ago
  In my mind power is often innate, while hierarchy arises from exercising power. I wouldn't say there's a hierarchy between two entities until one begins to control the other
• saltcured 7y ago
  I think it is a more practical relationship than something intrinsic. Power (or relative power, really) comes from consolidation and control of resources or agency. Hierarchy is a very efficient and scalable topology for command and control, helpful to manage such a consolidation. But, other methods might be possible to wield power without hierarchy. An individual with massive wealth can consolidate financial power. They certainly depend on a system that enforces rules and protects financial interests, but can you really call that hierarchy? They might perform significant, world-changing transactions but they do not continue to control the assets once they are traded. It might be a hierarchical distribution in the "trickle-down" sense, but is not hierarchical control nor planning. Or, if someone obtains some sort of scifi doomsday weapon and uses it to extort others, is that expressing hierarchy?