now it's personal
Locked
12
12
 
|
While I have always regarded The Christian Church with disdain/antipathy/disgust and considered them the source of many many evils (e.g. Crusades, Inquisition), it was always kind of impersonal. I just discovered that it was a Christian (nee Roman) Emperor, Theodosius, that shut down Eleusis and outlawed the Mysteries; setting the stage for the Visigoths to literally destroy the temple complex that an earlier Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, had, correctly, recognized as the fount of Athenian philosophy and science. You could make a good argument that banning the Mysteries is the direct primal cause of our alienation from each other as human beings as well as Nature — thus precipitating all our current woes, including the climate crisis. To rub salt in the wounds, the same year Theodosius was wreaking his mischief, Bishop Theophilus led a rabid Christian Mob in the sacking and burning of the Library of Alexandria and hundreds of satellite libraries (all in Pagan temples according to Theophilus), around the city. That makes it personal and I am pretty pissed that I was not informed of this long before now. davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
What was the relationship between the Library of Alexandria and the Muslim library in Cordoba that preserved many of the Greek writings and the Greek version of the Bible? Did the latter get some of the holdings of the former before the burning? Or do I have the timing all wrong? On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 9:27 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Ha, I know the feeling. I recently ordered the book "The Immortality Key: The
Secret History of the Religion with No Name" by Brian Muraresku. On a recent Joe Rogan podcast, Brian soberly discusses the mysteries, Eleusis, and the diaspora of those initiation rites into the western world. He relies on evidence from both classic texts and archeo-chemistry to construct an argument for the psychedelic eucharist. You might find it interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzAQ7SklDxo&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Can SCOTUS limit itself to law without making policy?
|
|
Amy Coney Barrett said that judges should stick to legal issues and leave policymaking to legislatures. "A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results he does not like. Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try," Let's assume she is intellectually honest and will do her best to live by this distinction. Do you think that's possible? How would you draw a line between legal issues and policy decisions? How could a court refuse to deal with cases that seem to require them to make policy decisions? Do you think a framework for courts could be established along these lines that would widely accepted? -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
I've forgotten what venue it was. But someone made the argument that elsewhere (other countries), courts don't have the power to strike down entire laws, and that extensive power is not inherent in our laws, either ... that it was somehow more convention than written in stone. They made the argument that John Roberts understands this, and understands that if the populace begins to reject the legitimacy of SCOTUS decisions, a flood of techniques could be used to degrade the courts' authority (much like the trends in the "unitary executive" have degraded Congress' authority).
It seems like that argument is relevant to at least one of your questions. For me, until Kavanaugh, I'd never really realized how political the SCOTUS actually is [⛧]. The membership is pretty much locked down by the Senate. And the Senate is the rural/right bastion, the core representation problem. We complain a lot about the electoral college. But it's the structure of the Senate that's the real problem for progressivism. So, for me, they've lost all patina of "objectivity" at this point. They're as vapidly political/partisan as the House. We may as well admit this loss of credibility and find a way to "harden" it against abuse. Of course, the Rs don't "govern". So we're left in the unfortunate position of relying on the Ds to do it, if it'll be done at all. [⛧] Yes, I know. All the signs were there my entire life. What can I say? I'm a moron. It took a Frat boy being confirmed to make me realize it. On 10/13/20 9:18 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > Amy Coney Barrett said that judges should stick to legal issues and leave policymaking to legislatures. > > "A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results he does not like. Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try," > > Let's assume she is intellectually honest and will do her best to live by this distinction. Do you think that's possible? How would you draw a line between legal issues and policy decisions? How could a court refuse to deal with cases that seem to require them to make policy decisions? Do you think a framework for courts could be established along these lines that would widely accepted? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
For those without 3 hours and want the 5 minute CNN version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkL2DLBM1j0&ab_channel=MatthewChapman -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
OK. So Christianity is *evidence* that we should not allow normies to do psychedelics? When Joe Sixpack takes a couple of hits of acid, he might start to believe really stupid things and start a religion that goes on to destroy the worlds' greatest artifacts? So, what bar do we have to put in place? The Political Compass? Only those with scores below <-6,-6> are allowed to trip. 8^D
Or maybe the lesson is the opposite, only normies should trip. Those of us who are *already insane* don't need them. We're already gods. Speaking of heresy: Church torches altar used in a ‘demonic’ three-way sex session https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2020/10/church-torches-altar-used-in-a-demonic-three-way-sex-session/ This sounds like a great new form of vandalism: Run around the country filming your 3-way sex on as many altars as possible. Fun and good for society! On 10/13/20 9:51 AM, jon zingale wrote: > For those without 3 hours and want the 5 minute CNN version: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkL2DLBM1j0&ab_channel=MatthewChapman > > On 10/13/20 8:27 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> While I have always regarded */The Christian Church /*with disdain/antipathy/disgust and considered them the source of many many evils (e.g. Crusades, Inquisition), it was always kind of impersonal. >> >> I just discovered that it was a Christian (nee Roman) Emperor, Theodosius, that shut down Eleusis and outlawed the Mysteries; setting the stage for the Visigoths to literally destroy the temple complex that an earlier Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, had, correctly, recognized as the fount of Athenian philosophy and science. You could make a good argument that banning the Mysteries is the direct primal cause of our alienation from each other as human beings as well as Nature — thus precipitating all our current woes, including the climate crisis. >> >> To rub salt in the wounds, the same year Theodosius was wreaking his mischief, Bishop Theophilus led a rabid Christian Mob in the sacking and burning of the Library of Alexandria and hundreds of satellite libraries (all in Pagan temples according to Theophilus), around the city. >> >> That makes it personal and I am pretty pissed that I was not informed of this long before now. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I don't know about Joey Six, Christians, or what to do about anything.
Brian's rhetorical form is pleasant to listen to and the content is clearly well researched. He offers a window into an interesting and controversial subject in the history of the west. Like when listening to "curator's corner", I long for structurally substantive narratives that are rooted in empirical findings. Alas like 3-ways, it may be a fetish best kept behind closed doors 8^D -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I wonder about the Joe Rogan podcast as a venue for substantive narratives. I suppose, given the wackos he implicitly advocates by giving them a prominent platform, the emphasis might be placed on *either* "substance" or "narrative" at one's leisure.
That's one of the reasons I dig things like the Lovecraft mythos or deep nonsense like Chaos Magick, weak on substance and long on narrative. But I suppose, like the targetless model, the narrative itself can be the object of study even if the only substance is the narrative itself ... a kind of impredicative Ouroboros. On 10/13/20 10:32 AM, jon zingale wrote: > I don't know about Joey Six, Christians, or what to do about anything. > Brian's rhetorical form is pleasant to listen to and the content is clearly > well researched. He offers a window into an interesting and controversial > subject in the history of the west. Like when listening to "curator's > corner", I long for structurally substantive narratives that are rooted in > empirical findings. Alas like 3-ways, it may be a fetish best kept behind > closed doors 8^D -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
"But I suppose, like the targetless model, the narrative itself can be the
object of study even if the only substance is the narrative itself" Careful, this kind of thinking maybe a gateway to postmodernism >8^D Rogan does a fairly good job of finding diverse voices, even when he cannot embody the perspectives. The long-form format also offers a lot. Some guests can take 45 minutes to warm up before offering real gems. For instance, the Mike Tyson interview offers rare insights into the mind of a champion fighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPUoxTvw5g&t=1s&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE The podcast is as much ethnography as anything else. Still, the Brian Muraresku interview is quite good exactly because Rogan gets out of the way and allows Muraresku to do his "lawyer trained on the classics" thing. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: Can SCOTUS limit itself to law without making policy?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Basically agree with you. (Justice Marshall decided that courts have the power to rule that laws violate the constitution.) I think that in some countries a court that finds a law somehow invalid is obligated to suggest changes that would make it valid -- and not just throw it out. (Perhaps that's the same thing you read.) Drawing a line between policy and legal issues would be one way to "harden" the courts against overt political interference. But can it be done in a way that would be widely accepted and then implemented? -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 9:43 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: I've forgotten what venue it was. But someone made the argument that elsewhere (other countries), courts don't have the power to strike down entire laws, and that extensive power is not inherent in our laws, either ... that it was somehow more convention than written in stone. They made the argument that John Roberts understands this, and understands that if the populace begins to reject the legitimacy of SCOTUS decisions, a flood of techniques could be used to degrade the courts' authority (much like the trends in the "unitary executive" have degraded Congress' authority). - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: Can SCOTUS limit itself to law without making policy?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
In 1982 a DOJ attorney wrote a series of memos advocating the position that Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over constitutional issues with "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Simply put, Congress could enact laws and include a clause exempting that law from Court review — not just the Supremes, but all federal courts.
Motivation behind the memos was advocacy of a position that Congress should pass laws, e.g. banning abortion or mandating school prayer, and bar the Courts from jurisdiction over that law and therefore prevent "travesties" like Roe v Wade. The same argument has been resurrected the past year by the Democratic left only this time the laws that would be protected would be things like Obamacare or a Green New Deal. The author of the memos: Chief Justice John Roberts. davew On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, at 10:43 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > I've forgotten what venue it was. But someone made the argument that > elsewhere (other countries), courts don't have the power to strike down > entire laws, and that extensive power is not inherent in our laws, > either ... that it was somehow more convention than written in stone. > They made the argument that John Roberts understands this, and > understands that if the populace begins to reject the legitimacy of > SCOTUS decisions, a flood of techniques could be used to degrade the > courts' authority (much like the trends in the "unitary executive" have > degraded Congress' authority). > > It seems like that argument is relevant to at least one of your questions. > > For me, until Kavanaugh, I'd never really realized how political the > SCOTUS actually is [⛧]. The membership is pretty much locked down by > the Senate. And the Senate is the rural/right bastion, the core > representation problem. We complain a lot about the electoral college. > But it's the structure of the Senate that's the real problem for > progressivism. So, for me, they've lost all patina of "objectivity" at > this point. They're as vapidly political/partisan as the House. We may > as well admit this loss of credibility and find a way to "harden" it > against abuse. Of course, the Rs don't "govern". So we're left in the > unfortunate position of relying on the Ds to do it, if it'll be done at > all. > > > [⛧] Yes, I know. All the signs were there my entire life. What can I > say? I'm a moron. It took a Frat boy being confirmed to make me realize > it. > > On 10/13/20 9:18 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > Amy Coney Barrett said that judges should stick to legal issues and leave policymaking to legislatures. > > > > "A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results he does not like. Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try," > > > > Let's assume she is intellectually honest and will do her best to live by this distinction. Do you think that's possible? How would you draw a line between legal issues and policy decisions? How could a court refuse to deal with cases that seem to require them to make policy decisions? Do you think a framework for courts could be established along these lines that would widely accepted? > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Just finished reading Muraresku's book - ordering the Road to Eleusis by Ruck, Wasson, and Hoffman. Muraresku cites it repeatedly. davew On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, at 9:57 AM, jon zingale wrote: > Ha, I know the feeling. I recently ordered the book "The Immortality Key: The > Secret History of the Religion with No Name" by Brian Muraresku. On a recent > Joe Rogan podcast, Brian soberly discusses the mysteries, Eleusis, and the > diaspora of those initiation rites into the western world. He relies on > evidence from both classic texts and archeo-chemistry to construct an > argument for the psychedelic eucharist. You might find it interesting. > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: Can SCOTUS limit itself to law without making policy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
I cannot attest to her earnestness, and we can haggle over the phrasing, but I think we all agree that there are some sorts of decisions that are clearly executive branch decisions, some that are clearly legislative branch decisions, and some that are clearly judicial branch decisions. That said, there will be gray-area problems where a problem can be looked at from an angle that makes it seem like a legislative issue or an angle that makes it seem like a judicial issue. And beyond just the gray-area problem, most social issues that are big enough to draw broad cultural attention are going to be complex enough to include facets that fit into more than one area. Even acknowledging the gray area, and that complex problems will have facets that fit in the different categories, it is still A Good Thing that anyone put on the Supreme Court sees their job as making certain types of decisions but not others. If a complex problem comes before them, they should offer a decision on only those facets that are judicial issues. If a gray-area case comes before them, the lawyers bringing the case should have to make a convincing argument that it is appropriate for the court's to weigh in. If there is something wrong about her phrasing, it is that - particularly at the Supreme Court level - judges have a significant role in deciding the meaning of "law as written." Roberts tie-breaking Obamacare concurrence is a good example. The law appeared to be written so that people were penalized for not having insurance. Roberts agreed with his conservative colleagues that Congress does not have the power to do what they appeared to be doing. Roberts, however, pointed out that a penalty for not having insurance was mathematically identical with a tax on everyone that you could get out of by buying insurance. He asserted the "law as written" to be constitutional based on that equivalence and Congress's power to levy taxes. On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 3:06 PM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
No Christianity is evidence that when you remove the psychedelics you get evil authoritarianism.
If Joe Sixpack and everyone else was belonged to the Church of the Vegetal in Santa Fe and partook in the Ayuhuasca ritual periodically, all our social and climate problems would go away and our scientific endeavors would be freed from the tyranny of Science. davew On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, at 11:07 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > OK. So Christianity is *evidence* that we should not allow normies to > do psychedelics? When Joe Sixpack takes a couple of hits of acid, he > might start to believe really stupid things and start a religion that > goes on to destroy the worlds' greatest artifacts? So, what bar do we > have to put in place? The Political Compass? Only those with scores > below <-6,-6> are allowed to trip. 8^D > > Or maybe the lesson is the opposite, only normies should trip. Those of > us who are *already insane* don't need them. We're already gods. > > Speaking of heresy: > > Church torches altar used in a ‘demonic’ three-way sex session > https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefreethinker/2020/10/church-torches-altar-used-in-a-demonic-three-way-sex-session/ > > This sounds like a great new form of vandalism: Run around the country > filming your 3-way sex on as many altars as possible. Fun and good for > society! > > > On 10/13/20 9:51 AM, jon zingale wrote: > > For those without 3 hours and want the 5 minute CNN version: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkL2DLBM1j0&ab_channel=MatthewChapman > > > > On 10/13/20 8:27 AM, Prof David West wrote: > >> While I have always regarded */The Christian Church /*with disdain/antipathy/disgust and considered them the source of many many evils (e.g. Crusades, Inquisition), it was always kind of impersonal. > >> > >> I just discovered that it was a Christian (nee Roman) Emperor, Theodosius, that shut down Eleusis and outlawed the Mysteries; setting the stage for the Visigoths to literally destroy the temple complex that an earlier Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, had, correctly, recognized as the fount of Athenian philosophy and science. You could make a good argument that banning the Mysteries is the direct primal cause of our alienation from each other as human beings as well as Nature — thus precipitating all our current woes, including the climate crisis. > >> > >> To rub salt in the wounds, the same year Theodosius was wreaking his mischief, Bishop Theophilus led a rabid Christian Mob in the sacking and burning of the Library of Alexandria and hundreds of satellite libraries (all in Pagan temples according to Theophilus), around the city. > >> > >> That makes it personal and I am pretty pissed that I was not informed of this long before now. > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: Can SCOTUS limit itself to law without making policy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Holy cow, this is fascinating! Roberts had written a 27 page Memo on the topic (starting on p. 66). There appears to be no ambiguity that Congress can limit what the federal lower courts can hear. The issue is particularly whether it can limit the ability of SCOTUS to hear cases. Roberts argues strongly that Congress could limit the ability of the SCOTUS to hear issues, effectively making the the state supreme courts the final arbiters on those issues, particularly in the context of 14th Amendment cases (as that Amendment was written in an era where people were pretty pissed at SCOTUS, and therefore it has special language making Congress the final arbiter of relevant issues). However, the context of the article is specifically summarizing a bunch of recent papers and a conference on exactly that topic. As he puts it:
Later Roberts prepared (at request) two versions of letter with different final paragraphs, one arguing that the congress could not limit the Supreme Court and one saything that it could. (page 53-56 in the link below). Both versions said that it was probably a terrible idea for Congress to make the 50 state supreme courts final arbiters of national issues, as surely disagreements would arise. When the Attorney General issued a final letter, it appeared to draw heavily upon what Roberts had prepared, including the opinion that Congress could not limit the Supreme Court's power. The Attorney General's letter concluded (p. 7):
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:04 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: In 1982 a DOJ attorney wrote a series of memos advocating the position that Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over constitutional issues with "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Simply put, Congress could enact laws and include a clause exempting that law from Court review — not just the Supremes, but all federal courts. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
ah, I should have guessed :) My copy should be here tomorrow or the next.
Recovering the initiation rites of our ancestors is bound to be revealing. It is a program that I have hopes will pick up steam in the coming years. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: Can SCOTUS limit itself to law without making policy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
Thanks, Dave, Eric. I had no idea these positions had been proposed, especially so recently and especially by Roberts! Supreme court review wrt constitutionality is not in the constitution. So there certainly seems to be room to argue that Congress could insulate some laws just by saying so. The policy vs. law issue applies in other situations, though. For example, as I understand it Row v Wade was not a decision of a law that explicitly allowed abortion. Roe v Wade "found" the right to abortion in the constitution. Even though I'm on the pro-choice side, I'm not sure that was a good way to establish such a "right"--and especially by SCOTUS. That really does seem like policymaking. On the other hand, since we've been living with it for quite a while, overturning it now would seem inappropriate. Similarly for gay marriage. If SCOTUS wants to challenge such SCOTUS-found rights, an interesting approach would be for them to give congress a certain period of time to make a law creating those rights before the decision takes effect. -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 3:17 PM Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Exactly! As THE canonical targetless model, cellular automata present a problem for those of us who reject postmodernism out of hand. I try not to throw that in CA-loving-PM-trashers faces, though, because the modernists are easily triggered.
Yeah, I've watched a few Rogan episodes. I stopped when I started thinking he's abdicated any sort of curation/editor role. He treats the INcredible the same as he treats the credible. He has the same problem we see in Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. They (Rogan, Facebook, Twitter) present themselves as neutral, simply a platform with no responsibility for their content, no editorial responsibility. So what if Joe seriously engages racists ... or people who claim their diet of only salt and meat cured their cancer ... or whatever. "You're free to believe them or not!" Then the next episode hosts a serious person with serious credibility. Pfft. If I want trash, I won't look to Rogan. If I want quality content, I won't look to Rogan. To each her own. But self-policing, self-governance, is important to me. If I see evidence of him *trying* to curate his content, as we've seen Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube *try* (and fail), then I might be more receptive. On 10/13/20 11:17 AM, jon zingale wrote: > "But I suppose, like the targetless model, the narrative itself can be the > object of study even if the only substance is the narrative itself" > > Careful, this kind of thinking maybe a gateway to postmodernism >8^D > > Rogan does a fairly good job of finding diverse voices, even when he cannot > embody the perspectives. The long-form format also offers a lot. Some guests > can take 45 minutes to warm up before offering real gems. For instance, the > Mike Tyson interview offers rare insights into the mind of a champion > fighter: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPUoxTvw5g&t=1s&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE > > The podcast is as much ethnography as anything else. Still, the Brian > Muraresku interview is quite good exactly because Rogan gets out of the way > and allows Muraresku to do his "lawyer trained on the classics" thing. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
*modernist trigger warning*
Of those modernists, it was ironically the structuralists (IMO) that opened this door that cannot be closed. Arguably, postmodernism (in particular Derrida) became a scapegoat for what Godel had already established 30 years earlier. The struggle mirrors only too well the immediate reactions of those mathematicians entrenched in Hilbert's dream. To this day, many in the mathematics community avoid a direct gaze and hold the belief that there is nothing to see there. Of course, I always wonder where Nick or EricC might stand with respect to CA and modernism. Every open sub-object, a glider or a metabolic system, is entailed by the CA and not the reverse. To speculate, I suppose Peirce would say that the universe is all *seething dog vomit* with but a few islands of temporally-local persistent patterns recognizable by us. OTOH, we need not be concerned by every possible CA, just the trajectory that we are on. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |