Stewart claimed last night that the right and power of judicial review was given to the federal courts in the US Constitution. It was not.
He does not know that?
This is so remarkable a performance by Jon Stewart that all should watch it and then not watch him again. PL
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/uzokdu/june-29--2015---taylor-schilling
Honestly,
I tend to think lawyers as a whole, do more to threaten my way of life and impinge upon my liberty and pursuit of happiness vice protect it.
Maybe that's just me though.
Posted by: Fred82 | 01 July 2015 at 05:15 AM
Agree!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 01 July 2015 at 05:27 AM
It is odd how seldom form Constitutional challenges are raised to statutory enactments of law. Constitutionality if challenged is always grounds for jurisdiction by the Courts.
Congress could modify judicial review to some extent simply by identifying which Constitutional provisions support any piece of legislation or bill. But this is hard work and better to allow the uncertainty of Judicial Review rather than take responsibility for Congressional actions.
It would also be A BIG HELP IF THE CONGRESSIONAL CONTRIBUTORS THAT WANTED THE LEGISLATION WERE DISCLOSED OR WHO BENEFITS FROM THE LEGISLATION. Oddly, Congress rarely adds the words PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY or protection thereof to its bills.
And of course like PRIVACY, the words PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 01 July 2015 at 05:38 AM
grimgrin
The question is not how the Justices are appointed. That is clear in the constitution. The issue is over a function not envisioned by the framers. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 July 2015 at 08:35 AM
Granted, cville, from female to female, that suggests you are older and can read the pseudo-democracy trends in this context.
I was quite old when I enrolled in a field that dealt with media, mainly TV and film. There were two distinct groups concerning TV: One argued, that the people get what they want. From my own limited perception they were a bit patronizing. But maybe they simply weren't aware of the laws governing public channels over here.
Humor, though has its own origins and traditions. Based on that it feels essential to me over the ages.
that said, I have to admit that Jon Steward insulted some deeper level of me before too. And I am a fan of our special type of political comedy. Can't remember it happened there once:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabarett
Thus I would be interested in what enraged Pat in this context.
Unfortunately I get this message:
"You're so close, yet so far away. We're sorry, but this video isn't available in your location."
Even if I enter the site via a US IP. And no, I do not want to look closer into the technical reasons for that, now.
Posted by: LeaNder | 01 July 2015 at 08:42 AM
Governing without the Supreme Court would be like playing baseball without umpires. It would not be pretty. What is more important is that nobody is infallible, but eventually the majority of the people gets it right and the government follows, but it is a messy process and that is probably a good thing.
Posted by: Lars | 01 July 2015 at 08:43 AM
Lars
Yes, actual democracy in which five lawyers did not exercise a power not envisioned by the framers would be a "messy" business. Who or what exercises the function of review for constitutionality In Sweden? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 July 2015 at 08:56 AM
LeAnder
"what enraged Pat in this context." I am easily enraged but in this case 1- Stewart misinformed the American people as to the origins of the "judicial review" power of the federal courts. He must have know the truth. 2- He rejoiced in heaping abuse on people like Alito for daring to hold views not in accord with those of the northeastern claque to which Stewart belongs. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 July 2015 at 09:07 AM
Practicality and pragmatism are worthwhile pursuits in governance and is one reason we are no longer concerned with Post Roads or Letters of Marque. Having 5, or 9, selected lawyers are probably preferable to not having any at all.
Posted by: Lars | 01 July 2015 at 09:19 AM
I am a big fan of Jane Austen and PG Wodehouse, both of whom used irony extensively in their writing. At what point, though, does irony transform itself into nihilism?
Rather than being partisan, I think that Stewart doesn't much believe in anything.
What ails the US public is primarily a cultural problem, for which there may not be an immediate political solution.
And I would guess that Stewart didn't study the Constitution in any detail at William and Mary.
Posted by: cville reader | 01 July 2015 at 10:22 AM
cville reader
My statement about JS, the constitution and W&M was ironic. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 July 2015 at 10:28 AM
Well, I can't always tell!
Posted by: cville reader | 01 July 2015 at 10:36 AM
cville reader
It would not be fun if you could. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 July 2015 at 10:39 AM
Col.,
Multi-millionaire liberal resident of NYC gloats that those ‘traditionally’ discriminated against are now free, thanks to the supreme court, to discriminate against other citizens– including firing, denying services, housing you name it, because hey, we’re the majority now and you don't like (gays, blacks, transgenders, etc)! On top of not understanding the Constitution he fails to remember the compromise by which Nevada became a state. Religious liberty? Well for Jewish citizens like him yes, of course. Those other Americans? Welcome to liberal America.
Posted by: Fred | 01 July 2015 at 11:12 AM
If only we held all comedy shows to this standard.
It's a comedy show.
He's a comedian.
Posted by: Richard Armstrong | 01 July 2015 at 04:24 PM
Richard Armstrong
No. IMO he is a political operative disguised as a comedian. He used to be funny. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 01 July 2015 at 07:37 PM
He is a comedian and the political world is an endless source for his jokes. Not surprisingly, one side of the political equation provides more material. It did the same for Will Rodgers, but he did not have a TV studio, so he did not have to come up with as many jokes.
Posted by: Lars | 01 July 2015 at 09:58 PM
Stewart is slow and sophomoric compared to Colbert. Sure, Stewart has his moments but he spends too much time making faces and noises like a high school clown. Colbert has a quicker wit and rapid fire delivery. I always liked the density this provided his show.
Taking over a cable access show in Monroe, Colbert is funny without a stable of writers. His satire at times goes over the head of the moron Eminem.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/1/8879943/stephen-colbert-eminem-late-show
Posted by: optimax | 02 July 2015 at 01:24 AM
cville, I committed a huge plunder not too long ago. For whatever reason I mixed up Jane Austen, I may in fact have for longer now.
The closest I can get, is a trend in the 70s over here, among some of my girlfriends to exclusively read and study "female authors". I instinctively disliked the idea of the claimed specific "female writing". Especially since it does not make much sense. And one very hyped up "female meditation" bored me to tears at the time. S I may have responded to this trend without completely realizing it with something like a partial censorship of female authors, hyped at that time. Although, I am not completely sure.
But mistakes occasionally help to learn. No doubt I should give Jane Austen a chance. After all she published under a male name initially, I understand. ;)
"At what point, though, does irony transform itself into nihilism?"
Interesting idea.
I have never systematically thought about it. But it may well start with humor. There is a very "cheap" type, that works with denigration basically. I know some people that consider themselves funny, but I tend to consider their humor sickening most of the time, and not at all funny.
Maybe we all occasionally cross that line? Only start to pay attention if there seems to a be a pattern.
But ironically enough, I responded pretty similar to Pat at the time: "OK dear Jon, that's it, no further interest". But then of cause may not have paid too much attention to my inner resolve. ;)
take care.
Posted by: LeaNder | 02 July 2015 at 07:47 AM
AGREE!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 03 July 2015 at 05:50 AM
5-4 decisions have undermined the rule of law in the USA IMO!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 03 July 2015 at 05:51 AM
Agree but it is because in American Civil Law who can pay a greedy and corrupt profession most readily controls who gets the Rule of Law!
Less than 10% of all civil rulings are made PUBLIC BY PUBLICATION!
So Civil Law is largely secret law. Many civil cases are SEALED from public inspection!
And BP will be getting tax deductions for many of its GOM payments.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 03 July 2015 at 05:55 AM