6 ms·
We can't have judicial activism only when it pleases us. Either laws are applied in the way they are written... or what are they for? The 2nd Circuit Court of
by ethbr0 3y ago
We can't have judicial activism only when it pleases us. Either laws are applied in the way they are written... or what are they for?
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals finds that the Bankruptcy Code, as currently written, allows for this action.
That the Sackler family is a bunch of profiteering, morally-bankrupt assholes is immaterial.
If we feel this is an unjust outcome, change starts with Congress passing laws that alter the Bankruptcy Code.
- beerpls 3y ago[flagged]
- ethbr0 3y agoI say this in the most respectful way, but apathy and internet-complaining do not change make. By what method do you suggest bankruptcy is changed?
- beerpls 3y agoSo when the mega wealthy control the laws and politicians and then you come to me asking how we should get the laws and politicians so what we want, what do you expect me to say? I’m not suggesting anything about bankruptcy. I’m saying it’s foolish to think voting will make this right
- ethbr0 3y agoSo what will make this right? It's clear what you're against -- what are you for?
- majormajor 3y ago"Voting" is certainly not a standalone answer to "how to get Congress to change laws." As you say, it's not gonna be easy to change politicians' minds... so doing nothing certainly won't do it. You can pick defeatism or you can get creative. Step 1 in the US as it is is probably "find your own connected people with access to money and work on getting them involved." It takes a long time, but I'd start with studying the anti-abortion movement, the environment or climate ones, or the ones around sexuality. Those are all fields where the laws of the land have moved.
- boeingUH60 3y agoCynicism is the refuge of the weak-minded and weak-willed.
- anigbrowl 3y agoIn recent decades, ballot initiatives that allow the public to vote directly on a legal change have proved a significantly faster way to get something done than the legislative process. Indeed, in some US states initiatives that become law are subsequently stymied by the legislative or executive branches. In an era of instantaneous networked communication, the traditional model of governance and the informal party structure seem to function more as tools to divide and conquer the population than to implement its policy aspirations.
- dmitrygr 3y agoThe best argument against direct democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Try it.
- anigbrowl 3y agoI have, of course. Have you ever talked to legislators? Many of them are little better, either intellectually or morally.
- ethbr0 3y agoFair point, but direct democracy is also subject to the passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts. Faster isn't always better. E.g. by individually-benefit-but-mass-cost initiatives ("Vote yes if you want $1"), exploiting insufficient education ("To enshrine wildlife management into our constitution" that actually permits nature exploitation), or overly emotional issues-of-the-day ("Increase national security powers" after a terrorist attack). Though it seems like the sheer organizational barrier to ballot inclusion (i.e. mass signature collection) limit the worst excesses of the above. In modern times, direct ballot initiatives definitely have their place in a functioning democracy, although perhaps with high barriers to listing, maximum numbers per ballot, and cool-down periods ("Will be on the ballot X years from now").
- nvahalik 3y ago> but direct democracy is also subject to the passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts And likewise, sometimes the "experts" installed within the bureaucratic system are not representative of the needs of the society.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jjtheblunt 3y agoYou know how the President can issue executive pardons? Can the President also issue something like the inverse, for cases where the law seems obviously buggy?
- henriquez 3y agoNo.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoThanks.
- opwieurposiu 3y agoThis is known as a Writ of Attainder and the United States Constitution forbids it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
- jjtheblunt 3y agoThanks, and I didn't know of that. Humourously, my genuine question was multiply downvoted. Odd.
- wolverine876 3y agoYou're assuming that the 2nd Circuit based their decision on a valid reading of the law. Why do you believe that? (I don't know, myself.) The legal system does have a history of favoring the powerful and connected.
- ss108 3y agoI think the alternative assumption would require some more evidence. The notion they are correct is default (until they are overruled by SCOTUS).
- wolverine876 3y agoI agree that it's the common default, but assuming by default that the system is working isn't the act of a responsible engineer, or citizen.
- jrflowers 3y agoThe southern district of New York was doing judicial activism and the second circuit of appeals was not? Since both things are humans talking about their interpretations of text, can you ELI5 why one was rooted in activism and the other was rooted in objectivity?
- jfengel 3y ago"Things I hate" are activism. "Things I like" are reading the plain, obvious text of the law/Constitution/16th century jurist that I've decided is relevant.