4 ms·

No descent on rulings within Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice, so I guess that must be a model of jurisprudence /s I'm assuming you don't know much abou

No descent on rulings within Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice, so I guess that must be a model of jurisprudence /s I'm assuming you don't know much about the mechanics of common law. But these cases are not mathematical problems, they involve different theories of legal interpretation, which stray into the philosophical and political sphere of reasoning.

belter 5y ago
You used both a "False Analogy" in the comparison to Venezuela supreme court, and also a "Courtier's reply" in the second part of your comment. I see no arguments that address my points. I got downvoted to oblivion, but looked at both your reply, and the previous ones all. All I see is a failure to argue my underlying point. So I will try again... That laws and legal scenarios can be ambiguous, contradictory, and imperfect it is only normal. These are written by humans. But in that case, it should be to the Supreme Court to clarify the ambiguity, contradiction and imperfection of the law itself in a consistent way. Otherwise its more of a Political Council than a Supreme Court using the word Court to shield political bias under the disguise of interpretation of the Law. It looks like instead, some of the dissenting opinions are used to push biased agendas. These after all, we should not forget, politically appointed judges, ( you know ...like in Venezuela... ) Most the arguments in this thread talked about different analysis, and you mention different philosophical and political views without, it seems, realizing that is after all, at the core of my concerns. The last thing we want to see in a court is judges expanding on their philosophical and political views. Most commentators in this thread seem to indulge the court on taking those liberties under the excuse their are doing "error handling" or interpreting differently the law. They should not be interpreting differently the law, they should be clarifying the ambiguities, identifying the contradictions and referring them back to the legislative branches that can correct them. That is my core point. It seem to have been missed by many of the commentators here that in many legal jurisdictions dissenting opinions do not exist or are frowned upon. This has NOTHING to do with lack of legal argumentation or discussion within the courts. Just to give another example from a different legal perspective: ========================================================= "Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of Australia, has expressed concern at the frequency of judicial dissents and the attention given to them by law students and legal commentators. She believes that they should be reserved for only the most important cases, and has described judges who frequently dissent as "somewhat self-indulgent". She further observed that "humorous dissent may provide the author with fleeting popularity, but it may harm the image the public has of the court and its judges". ========================================================== I also find interesting some of the comments ( I presume from legal scholars ) in this thread, praising the smartness and clairvoyance of the court. Them seem to forget that historically the court: 1) Defined the tomato should be classified as a vegetable not as a fruit. ( Its a fruit by the way...) Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) 2) BOWERS v. HARDWICK(1986) No. 85-140 Upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. 3) Did Bush vs Gore in a completely partisan split 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1(2000) 4) Opened the gates to all SuperPacs.... CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION(2010) No. 08-205
- plurinshael 5y ago
  Thanks for expanding and clarifying your comments. I too find much of the U.S. court system troubling; more to the point, the common law itself. The standard catch-phrase in the United States (about government in general and the judiciary in part) is "checks and balances", but those checks and balances often seem quite primitive (most having been designed 100+ years prior to mathematical formalism / rigor). We need checks and balances to be sure, but we also need homeostasis and self-repair; we need a rigorous system of axioms upon which to base logical reasoning; we need a solid philosophical grounding. The very fact that a legal rift exists between so-called Originalism and so-called Living Constitution theory tells me the entire system lacks a formal (rigorous) basis. Given that the American judiciary grew out of the English colonial judiciary, which in practice looked more towards the whims and largesses of the aristocracy than any principled grounding in (legal, philosophical, or mathematical) form and structure, it does not wholly surprise me. We do better now than the English colonial judges did, but we can do better still.

belter 5y ago

You used both a "False Analogy" in the comparison to Venezuela supreme court, and also a "Courtier's reply" in the second part of your comment. I see no arguments that address my points. I got downvoted to oblivion, but looked at both your reply, and the previous ones all. All I see is a failure to argue my underlying point. So I will try again... That laws and legal scenarios can be ambiguous, contradictory, and imperfect it is only normal. These are written by humans. But in that case, it should be to the Supreme Court to clarify the ambiguity, contradiction and imperfection of the law itself in a consistent way. Otherwise its more of a Political Council than a Supreme Court using the word Court to shield political bias under the disguise of interpretation of the Law. It looks like instead, some of the dissenting opinions are used to push biased agendas. These after all, we should not forget, politically appointed judges, ( you know ...like in Venezuela... ) Most the arguments in this thread talked about different analysis, and you mention different philosophical and political views without, it seems, realizing that is after all, at the core of my concerns. The last thing we want to see in a court is judges expanding on their philosophical and political views. Most commentators in this thread seem to indulge the court on taking those liberties under the excuse their are doing "error handling" or interpreting differently the law. They should not be interpreting differently the law, they should be clarifying the ambiguities, identifying the contradictions and referring them back to the legislative branches that can correct them. That is my core point. It seem to have been missed by many of the commentators here that in many legal jurisdictions dissenting opinions do not exist or are frowned upon. This has NOTHING to do with lack of legal argumentation or discussion within the courts. Just to give another example from a different legal perspective: ========================================================= "Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of Australia, has expressed concern at the frequency of judicial dissents and the attention given to them by law students and legal commentators. She believes that they should be reserved for only the most important cases, and has described judges who frequently dissent as "somewhat self-indulgent". She further observed that "humorous dissent may provide the author with fleeting popularity, but it may harm the image the public has of the court and its judges". ========================================================== I also find interesting some of the comments ( I presume from legal scholars ) in this thread, praising the smartness and clairvoyance of the court. Them seem to forget that historically the court: 1) Defined the tomato should be classified as a vegetable not as a fruit. ( Its a fruit by the way...) Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) 2) BOWERS v. HARDWICK(1986) No. 85-140 Upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. 3) Did Bush vs Gore in a completely partisan split 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1(2000) 4) Opened the gates to all SuperPacs.... CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION(2010) No. 08-205

plurinshael 5y ago
Thanks for expanding and clarifying your comments. I too find much of the U.S. court system troubling; more to the point, the common law itself. The standard catch-phrase in the United States (about government in general and the judiciary in part) is "checks and balances", but those checks and balances often seem quite primitive (most having been designed 100+ years prior to mathematical formalism / rigor). We need checks and balances to be sure, but we also need homeostasis and self-repair; we need a rigorous system of axioms upon which to base logical reasoning; we need a solid philosophical grounding. The very fact that a legal rift exists between so-called Originalism and so-called Living Constitution theory tells me the entire system lacks a formal (rigorous) basis. Given that the American judiciary grew out of the English colonial judiciary, which in practice looked more towards the whims and largesses of the aristocracy than any principled grounding in (legal, philosophical, or mathematical) form and structure, it does not wholly surprise me. We do better now than the English colonial judges did, but we can do better still.