4 ms·

Reading and listening to https://www.oyez.org/ https://www.oyez.org/ - a fantastic resource for Supreme Court transcripts - it's clear that regardless of their

by btown 7y ago

Reading and listening to https://www.oyez.org/ https://www.oyez.org/ - a fantastic resource for Supreme Court transcripts - it's clear that regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances of their appointment, each justice is incredibly intelligent and engaged. The problem is that when it comes to the really sticky, complex issues that affect huge swaths of human rights, it's very possible for justices, in your words, to "rely upon fact and logical argument," but base their end goal/optimization function on either "what did the founders of the country factually and logically intend" or "what do the norms and ideals of modern society suggest would be factually and logically sustainable" without regard to the opposite viewpoint. A real balance between these viewpoints keeps the pendulum from swinging out of control; it serves as a low-pass filter on the often-wild steering of policy, or the whims of a short-term-focused electorate. But it's equally important that the ultimate power reside long-term with the people. And one very possible outcome is that our justices succumb simultaneously to a pandemic, during an administration that, to be as charitable as possible, does not seem particularly concerned with nuance, system stability, or universal enfranchisement. And it's a lot to ask of a justice to hold both the meta-meta-viewpoint and legal precision in mind, especially as it seems likely that constitutional questions will be in play as November approaches. All we can do is hope they will rise to the occasion.

baybal2 7y ago
FYI: a lot of US supreme court opinions are not even written by justices, but by their law clerks and assistants. Similarly, judges deputise their legal research to them at rate that would be rather unsettling for most of us outside of US. Anything like that would not be something expected from country's best laywers. A judge given a quarter million USD salary must be the best of the best in performance, and not to deputise his most important duties. > it's clear that regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances of their appointment, each justice is incredibly intelligent and engaged. I heard of much less charitable descriptions of the process, with the most frequent being about the well known mental decline of some judges. > The problem is that when it comes to the really sticky, complex issues that affect huge swaths of human rights, it's very possible for justices, in your words, to "rely upon fact and logical argument," but base their end goal/optimization function on either "what did the founders of the country factually and logically intend" or "what do the norms and ideals of modern society suggest would be factually and logically sustainable" without regard to the opposite viewpoint. This is one of very many problems. US court system has become too much more than just a legal institute it should be. The point my law instructor told me was that a judge just a lawyer on the government payroll, and half of them should be sent back to the law school so bad their skill level was. Then, if you can not trust half of them with most basic judicial duties, why should you entrust them with the fate of society, moral guidance, and big matter topics? Basically, the elites in the West tend to think too many things about lawyers, when they shouldn't. He was a lawyer by trade, and he was not happy with society putting lawyers in charge of running itself at all.
- foxbarrington 7y ago
  > Anything like that would not be something expected from country's best laywers. A judge given a quarter million USD salary must be the best of the best in performance, and not to deputise his most important duties. $250k is what 4th year lawyers at big firms like Cravath make. Partners can make 10x or more, and a lot of the work of partners is done by associates. [0] If an associate has clerked for a supreme court justice, they can expect bonus of $400k. [1] I don't know of a justice who has gone back to private practice, but it doesn't take too much to imagine that their salary would be much, much more than a quarter million USD. [0]: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/first-firm-matches-the-new-and-improved-cravath-pay-scale/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/first-firm-matches-the-new-a... [1]: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/400k-is-now-the-official-market-rate-for-supreme-court-clerk-bonuses/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/400k-is-now-the-official-mar...
  - sk5t 7y ago
    $250k is indeed not big money in DC / NYC / Boston. Consider that such a single income, after taxes, would be just about adequate to quality for a mortgage on a well-appointed toolshed in Nantucket.
  - LunaSea 7y ago
    Doesn't really matter in the end. If you accept a salary for a job you actually do the job. Period.
- patmorgan23 7y ago
  The justice still gets to decide what language and arguments make it into the final opinion. The clerks are their to take some of the load off their shoulders. The supreme court produces a lot of writing every year for nine people and they cam be very hairy technical issues, of course they have a staff to assist them in research and drafting.

by btown 7y ago

baybal2 7y ago

FYI: a lot of US supreme court opinions are not even written by justices, but by their law clerks and assistants. Similarly, judges deputise their legal research to them at rate that would be rather unsettling for most of us outside of US. Anything like that would not be something expected from country's best laywers. A judge given a quarter million USD salary must be the best of the best in performance, and not to deputise his most important duties. > it's clear that regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances of their appointment, each justice is incredibly intelligent and engaged. I heard of much less charitable descriptions of the process, with the most frequent being about the well known mental decline of some judges. > The problem is that when it comes to the really sticky, complex issues that affect huge swaths of human rights, it's very possible for justices, in your words, to "rely upon fact and logical argument," but base their end goal/optimization function on either "what did the founders of the country factually and logically intend" or "what do the norms and ideals of modern society suggest would be factually and logically sustainable" without regard to the opposite viewpoint. This is one of very many problems. US court system has become too much more than just a legal institute it should be. The point my law instructor told me was that a judge just a lawyer on the government payroll, and half of them should be sent back to the law school so bad their skill level was. Then, if you can not trust half of them with most basic judicial duties, why should you entrust them with the fate of society, moral guidance, and big matter topics? Basically, the elites in the West tend to think too many things about lawyers, when they shouldn't. He was a lawyer by trade, and he was not happy with society putting lawyers in charge of running itself at all.

foxbarrington 7y ago
> Anything like that would not be something expected from country's best laywers. A judge given a quarter million USD salary must be the best of the best in performance, and not to deputise his most important duties. $250k is what 4th year lawyers at big firms like Cravath make. Partners can make 10x or more, and a lot of the work of partners is done by associates. [0] If an associate has clerked for a supreme court justice, they can expect bonus of $400k. [1] I don't know of a justice who has gone back to private practice, but it doesn't take too much to imagine that their salary would be much, much more than a quarter million USD. [0]: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/first-firm-matches-the-new-and-improved-cravath-pay-scale/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/first-firm-matches-the-new-a... [1]: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/400k-is-now-the-official-market-rate-for-supreme-court-clerk-bonuses/ https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/400k-is-now-the-official-mar...
- sk5t 7y ago
  $250k is indeed not big money in DC / NYC / Boston. Consider that such a single income, after taxes, would be just about adequate to quality for a mortgage on a well-appointed toolshed in Nantucket.
- LunaSea 7y ago
  Doesn't really matter in the end. If you accept a salary for a job you actually do the job. Period.
patmorgan23 7y ago
The justice still gets to decide what language and arguments make it into the final opinion. The clerks are their to take some of the load off their shoulders. The supreme court produces a lot of writing every year for nine people and they cam be very hairy technical issues, of course they have a staff to assist them in research and drafting.