On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.
George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference to the
concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"?
==========
I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues. [There are many
others, generally involving pension funding and corporate
stockholder "rights"] A closely related situation is the rush by
the pols to sell public property [to "balance the budget"] such
as roads at fire sale prices to for-profit companies that then
charge the public to use the facilities their taxes paid for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300783.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/698927-84.stm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14921
And how should current
"concerns" influence decisions about constitutionality of laws? After all,
that's basically what they do.
---------------
Legal cases are not brought in a vacuum [if they are, that's what
is called a moot court which is an academic exercise], and the
tacit/implicit contextual factors are frequently more important
than the written law, which may be ambagious, or as frequently
occurs, several legal conflicting legal theories or precedents
apply. Also experience may show that certain assumptions or
pre-conditions were not correct or changed over time.
A prime example of this is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
347 U.S. 483 (1954 which reviewed the results of Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education
IMNSHO, the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson of "separate, but equal"
was correct for the time and the legal situation as it was then
understood.
The problem was [and would be again] is that the word "SEPERATE"
was easily heard and understood, while the qualifier ", but
equal" was widely ignored. By 1954, the schools, curriculum,
equipment, etc. for the majority students had seen very
considerable progress/improvement, while the schools, curriculum,
equipment, etc. for most "separate, but equal" minority schools
had not, which in [too] many cases remained at or about the 1896
levels.
The serious and increasing adverse aggregate socio-economic
effects of this growing disparity in education availability, on
the national economy/society, were well documented by Gunnar
Myrdal in his book "An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and
Modern Democracy." [FWIW -- this was admitted as evidence for
its factual data, and not its legal theories.] Thus there were
not only serious equity/chancery questions raised, but also
undeniable and increasing serious questions of national economic
impact (and on social stability resulting from the economic
effects), with the result that "Brown" supplanted "Plessy."
==Our increasingly deaf financial and corporate management would
do well to pay attention to this case.==
This "Ivory Tower" problem is greatly exacerbated when the judges
are living in the "never was TV world" of "Leave It To Beaver" of
the 1950s, and/or are isolated by their elitist education and
social/financial status from the huge majority of citizens.
Current (2008) salary for the Chief Justice is $217,400 per year,
while Associate Justices make $208,100.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjustices.htm
with primo free medical care/perscription benefits and a super
retirement package, all paid for by the taxpayers. [So much for
objective action on socialized medicine and pension reform...]
Some specific instances are SCOTUS failure/refusal to act on, or
indeed even recognize, the problems of the inaccuracy and/or
fraud of the new computerized voting methods [which not only
determine which politicians are elected, but also the passage of
bond issues and local tax rates], and their denial of the reality
of the existence of, and gross abuse by, transnational
corporations, many of which now rival many nominally independent
countries in wealth and influence.
We now appear to be headed back into the "two societies"
described by the "National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders" [1967] know popularly as the "Kerner Commission,"
except this is now divided into a huge class of [increasingly]
poor, and a tiny class of the affluent.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission
Given the events that caused the creation of this investigatory
commission [i.e. wide-spread urban riots and extreme civil
disorders], it would appear that every effort should be made to
avoid such a division. Deliberate [or even the passive allowing]
of the creation of social conditions known to promote "class
warfare" is about on a par with the deliberate re-introduction of
bubonic plague, small pox or typhus as a population control
measure.
In this case an ounce of prevention is worth not a pound, but a
ton of "cure."
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).