3 ms·

Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of

by th0br0 12y ago

Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of whether it should become active to the head of the executive/judicative? So much about the separation of powers...

DannyBee 12y ago
??? It doesn't defer it's decision. It is asking for the views of the solicitor general. The solicitor general has a dual role int he legal system. In one role, as an advocate, he serves the president, and is responsible for deciding which and whether federal cases get appealed to the supreme court, and representing the government in that case. In the other role, the solicitor general is a special officer of the supreme court (he actually has an office in the building), and is often asked for an honest assessment of cases that are not government cases. IE the court wants to know what the solicitor general, as a lawyer who sees a ton of cases before the court, thinks of whether the questions presented and their interplay with federal law, are worth the courts time to hear. Part of the reason is that the solicitor general is much more plugged into the state of the law and upcoming cases around the country than the supreme court (and rightfully so). So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. In the end, he simply makes a recommendation. Sometimes the court accepts the recommendation, sometimes it doesn't.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? Its interesting to think that we have one court that could decide an issue in any form of human endeavor. From, say, abortion to copywritable APIs. Its kinda scary how much power they ultimately wield and quite a statement about how deeply we're governed and controlled by the state.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? No, because the SCOTUS isn't deferring, and often seeks the input of the SG on cases, tech or not, particularly ones involving interpretation of federal law that would impact the role of the executive where the government is not a direct party, or ones that potentially have wide policy implications (regardless if they directly affect the role of the executive branch) where the government is not direct party. This is just a matter of the court wanting to have the issues well briefed before it makes a decision, not specifically an issue related to technology.
jaredhansen 12y ago
1) They aren't deferring the decision of whether to become active; they're asking the administration to provide its thoughts. They aren't bound to do what the administration says, but it's not unprecedented or even that odd. 2) Not to be pedantic but for the benefit of others who may not be aware: the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, not the head of the legislative body. Congress is legislative, the courts are judicial, and the Obama administration is the current incarnation of the executive branch.
- lonnyk 12y ago
  > 2) Not to be pedantic You're not being pedantic.
- th0br0 12y ago
  Whoops, mixed the two words up there... sorry about that. I just read the article as the decision being a bit more conditionally then.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of whether it should become active to the head of the executive/judicative? Congress is the legislative branch, the Supreme Court is the highest body of the judiciary branch, and the President is the head of the legislative branch, so you've got the three branches mostly all mixed up in that question. On top of that, the Supreme Court is not deferring the decision to the head or any member of the executive, it is soliciting input from the executive branch in a rather routine manner. (Specifically, it has communicated that "The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.") > So much about the separation of powers... The Supreme Court still makes the decision, it just is soliciting input from the executive. Is it a violation of separation of powers when Congress calls a member of the executive to testify on a legislative proposal?

by th0br0 12y ago

DannyBee 12y ago

??? It doesn't defer it's decision. It is asking for the views of the solicitor general. The solicitor general has a dual role int he legal system. In one role, as an advocate, he serves the president, and is responsible for deciding which and whether federal cases get appealed to the supreme court, and representing the government in that case. In the other role, the solicitor general is a special officer of the supreme court (he actually has an office in the building), and is often asked for an honest assessment of cases that are not government cases. IE the court wants to know what the solicitor general, as a lawyer who sees a ton of cases before the court, thinks of whether the questions presented and their interplay with federal law, are worth the courts time to hear. Part of the reason is that the solicitor general is much more plugged into the state of the law and upcoming cases around the country than the supreme court (and rightfully so). So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. In the end, he simply makes a recommendation. Sometimes the court accepts the recommendation, sometimes it doesn't.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? Its interesting to think that we have one court that could decide an issue in any form of human endeavor. From, say, abortion to copywritable APIs. Its kinda scary how much power they ultimately wield and quite a statement about how deeply we're governed and controlled by the state.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? No, because the SCOTUS isn't deferring, and often seeks the input of the SG on cases, tech or not, particularly ones involving interpretation of federal law that would impact the role of the executive where the government is not a direct party, or ones that potentially have wide policy implications (regardless if they directly affect the role of the executive branch) where the government is not direct party. This is just a matter of the court wanting to have the issues well briefed before it makes a decision, not specifically an issue related to technology.

jaredhansen 12y ago

1) They aren't deferring the decision of whether to become active; they're asking the administration to provide its thoughts. They aren't bound to do what the administration says, but it's not unprecedented or even that odd. 2) Not to be pedantic but for the benefit of others who may not be aware: the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, not the head of the legislative body. Congress is legislative, the courts are judicial, and the Obama administration is the current incarnation of the executive branch.

lonnyk 12y ago
> 2) Not to be pedantic You're not being pedantic.
th0br0 12y ago
Whoops, mixed the two words up there... sorry about that. I just read the article as the decision being a bit more conditionally then.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of whether it should become active to the head of the executive/judicative? Congress is the legislative branch, the Supreme Court is the highest body of the judiciary branch, and the President is the head of the legislative branch, so you've got the three branches mostly all mixed up in that question. On top of that, the Supreme Court is not deferring the decision to the head or any member of the executive, it is soliciting input from the executive branch in a rather routine manner. (Specifically, it has communicated that "The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.") > So much about the separation of powers... The Supreme Court still makes the decision, it just is soliciting input from the executive. Is it a violation of separation of powers when Congress calls a member of the executive to testify on a legislative proposal?