The US Supreme Court

[Tekun]

I was watchin a special on the history and decisions of the US Supreme Court since the 1800's, on PBS last night
And through the entire thing, I was thinking to myself, what society would allow or give 9 upper class twats the power to interpret and initiate the law making process based on a 200yr old document written by some more upper class twats?
People living in a society should have the power to make/interpret the laws that govern over them
I think we all consider the Supreme Court as a joke of an institution, but I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this charade

And, under socialism, how would a society make and alter its laws?
Would an institution be needed?

[Rawthentic]

It's a good question, and a tough one at that. I suppose that laws will simply be subject to popular will and will reflect the necessities and relationships of the time. But it won't be laws in the bourgeois sense.

[apathy maybe]

Just like on this message board we have rules, so to in a class-less state-less society their would be 'rules'. These would be mostly unwritten and regard the social interactions of individuals, they would not interfere with the actions of the individual if that individual is not interacting with others (directly or indirectly).

The citizens councils (or whatever you want to call them) that would be existing would discuss matters such as how the local community should be run. High councils based on delegates from the various local communities would discuss issues pertaining to the local communities affected.

But when it comes down to it, if you are not interfering or interacting with others, it wouldn't be anarchistic to impose any sort of rule or restriction upon you.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Originally posted by Tekun+--> (Tekun)And through the entire thing, I was thinking to myself, what society would allow or give 9 upper class twats the power to interpret and initiate the law making process ...[/b]

The Supreme Court was originally created to be the deciding factor in disputes involving parties in different states or the states themselves.

In Marbury v. Madison in the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall proclaimed the ability of "judicial review" which would allow the Judicial Branch, esp. the Supreme Court, the ability to look at or review any law passed by Congress. Judicial review has expanded over time to include any law passed in the United States regardless of its origin.

So the Supreme Court basically gave itself that power, and the Executive branch (the Presidency) inforces the Court's will on decisions, even though it can and does ignore the Court from time to time (think FDR in the New Deal days).


People living in a society should have the power to make/interpret the laws that govern over them

I agree. I don't like the Supreme Court much. Although I sort of see its point a little, I would have to strongly disagree with its execution. It is a very conservative and backward pedalling institution regardless of who creates it, and I think we can do better as people ... but especially as Leftists.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I suppose that laws will simply be subject to popular will and will reflect the necessities and relationships of the time.

Popular will? What is that? Do you mean things like "no gays" and "bomb them back to the stone age"? ... I'm a little weary of fickle "popular will", so let's at least write down our laws so I know my limits, and that other guy knows his.


apathy maybe
These would be mostly unwritten and regard the social interactions of individuals, they would not interfere with the actions of the individual if that individual is not interacting with others (directly or indirectly).

Unwritten? Not interacting? Someone's been reading their Mill. How would I know I have interfered with someone if it is not written down? What bothers the hell out of me may not bother anyone else, so how could anyone argue against what I want?

Next thing you know, you have the councils (or, whatever, as you say) will be swamped with cases because people won't know what the hell is going on. And then the councils will realize that they are repeating the same old cases over and over again and then they will begin to write them down ... viola! Written laws!


But when it comes down to it, if you are not interfering or interacting with others, it wouldn't be anarchistic to impose any sort of rule or restriction upon you.

Then you wouldn't have a society. I don't even know if what you are saying is possible, just ask Mill.

TGOW

[Guerrilla22]

I think a good route to go would to follow the Venezuelan model. There, local regions vote on reperestatives to an electoral council. The electoral council then selects candidates for the federal courts and the nominations must be confirmed by congress.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:33 pm
I think a good route to go would to follow the Venezuelan model. There, local regions vote on reperestatives to an electoral council. The electoral council then selects candidates for the federal courts and the nominations must be confirmed by congress.
This is basically the US system but your not electing a council to appoint judges your electing a president. But why would we trade one representative council for another? Do you not want direct democracy?

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah, in some states the people can vote on state judges directly.

[Clarksist]

Something that needs to be added to the discussion, is the overall result of having lifetime appointed judges who have a vast amount of control over laws.

This is the ultimate long lasting action of any president who goes through the process of nominating a judge, and it is because of their role's length that they are picked. No one is given a position based on short term political "hot-button" issues, but on central key ideological points.

Through the years, these key ideological subjects become ingrained further into US law, creating precedent after precedent in this ideological mode. This long term control is the essence of the conservative tendencies in US courts. This is the precise problem.

In a revolutionary society, no group of "judges" should be able to control any decision making, and especially not unelected, lifetime serving ones!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:24 pm
Yeah, in some states the people can vote on state judges directly.
Thats not what I ment. I ment completel democracy in the running production. There will be no judges after a revolution but the people themselves.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+--> (violencia.Proletariat)This is basically the US system but your not electing a council to appoint judges your electing a president.[/b]

Well, the President appoints Justices but the Senate must approve them. So, it is a bit like Venezuela's system; well the Venezeulan system is a bit like the US one I suppose. Albeit the Venezuelan system does seem more democratic, if a country wants to maintain a Supreme Court.


Originally posted by Clarksist+--> (Clarksist)Something that needs to be added to the discussion, is the overall result of having lifetime appointed judges who have a vast amount of control over laws.[/b]

Good call. The US is one of the very few countries that allows a Supreme Court to decide on the legality of legislation that has already passed through an elected lawmaking body!

We can say what you want about Congress and "elections" and whatnot, but this still unfortunately stands.


Originally posted by Guerilla22
Yeah, in some states the people can vote on state judges directly.

I believe you are right about the judgeships and all, but I do not believe these are the same as state or national Supreme Court Justices. Judges are for preciding over criminal or civil trials in specific districts and not judging the constitutionality of any form of legislation whether local, state or at the federal level.

Just clearing that up.


[email protected]
In a revolutionary society, no group of "judges" should be able to control any decision making, and especially not unelected, lifetime serving ones!

As I was reading through these again, I began to think that maybe a body of oversight wouldn't be too bad as long as its role and powers are clearly defined. For example, I sure wouldn't like an unelected-group-of-lifetime-serving-anyones controlling decision making. But what if their role (whether elected or appointed) was in the form of an advisory committee?

This committee wouldn't have the power to end legislation or decisionmaking of any kind, but they would be able to point out problems (both legally and administratively) of laws or decisions passed.

It's just an idea. Toy with it, run with it. Afterall, Tekun's initial quetions


Tekun
And, under socialism, how would a society make and alter its laws?
Would an institution be needed?

... are definitely worth while to ponder.

I don't believe any of this bogus "they just will" arguments shoved out like so-much gospel truth; so I think that this question should hold more attention than what it does.

Lemme know what you think. I don't think we have given much of an answer except "all decisions will be made by the people" ... let's be a bit more concrete than that.

TGOW