I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn’t know there were so many other agencies that aren’t even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I’m having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than “correcting” earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.
Someone pointed out to me that the majority of what we consider “good” SCOTUS decisions came from the Warren court. Nearly every other case you could name you only know because of its detrimental effect on American progress. In that light, Roberts is just course-correcting SCOTUS: a branch of the government that historically keeps citizens from being too free.
Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.
(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)
How so? I’m arguing for SCOTUS not to take a wrecking ball to our government by suddenly making unlawful procedures that have been relied on for so long they are assumed in laws passed by Congress decades ago. Should alleged violations of those laws be tried in front of a jury instead of this other mechanism? Maybe, but how about we make that change in a way that doesn’t suddenly render those laws de facto unenforceable with no warning?
Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide. I know it’s less efficient and longer, but seems to increase the chances of decisions being made with some humanity, rather than political bias in terms of appointments
Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide.
I don’t have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?
Well im kinda opposed to the supreme court as a concept, it didn’t even exist early on in American history, but it is what it is. The other laws will have to fall in like or Congress will have to act
I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn’t know there were so many other agencies that aren’t even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I’m having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than “correcting” earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.
Someone pointed out to me that the majority of what we consider “good” SCOTUS decisions came from the Warren court. Nearly every other case you could name you only know because of its detrimental effect on American progress. In that light, Roberts is just course-correcting SCOTUS: a branch of the government that historically keeps citizens from being too free.
Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.
(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)
You’re arguing for things to be worse, tho.
Smh…
How so? I’m arguing for SCOTUS not to take a wrecking ball to our government by suddenly making unlawful procedures that have been relied on for so long they are assumed in laws passed by Congress decades ago. Should alleged violations of those laws be tried in front of a jury instead of this other mechanism? Maybe, but how about we make that change in a way that doesn’t suddenly render those laws de facto unenforceable with no warning?
Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide. I know it’s less efficient and longer, but seems to increase the chances of decisions being made with some humanity, rather than political bias in terms of appointments
(Not that I really know what I’m talking about)
I don’t have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?
Well im kinda opposed to the supreme court as a concept, it didn’t even exist early on in American history, but it is what it is. The other laws will have to fall in like or Congress will have to act