Slashdot Mirror
Utah Supreme Court Ruling Bars Direct Sales of Teslas Through a Subsidiary (arstechnica.com)
The Utah Supreme court has ruled on Monday that the state's regulators could prohibit an auto manufacturer from having ownership interest in a dealer. "In what the court called 'a narrow, legal decision,' it said that it wouldn't weigh in on whether allowing the state's Tax Commission to prohibit direct sales from Tesla's wholly owned subsidiary was the best policy for residents of Utah," reports Ars Technica. "Instead, the court said its job was simply to determine whether the commission could legally make that prohibition." From the report: Tesla created its subsidiary, Tesla UT, to be able to sell new cars in Utah, but the State Tax Commission ruled that the subsidiary needed a franchise agreement. Tesla UT entered into a partnership with its parent company, but the commission said Tesla couldn't have a financial interest in Tesla UT's franchise. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts." A Tesla spokesperson told Ars, "The Utah ruling is disappointing for Tesla and all Utah consumers interested in consumer choice, free markets, and sustainable energy. We will pursue all options to ensure that Tesla can operate in Utah without restriction. In the meantime, we will continue to provide service and limited sales activities (through our used car license) at our location in South Salt Lake City."
Thank God that the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We can't have collusion between auto companies and dealers. The consumer would be totally shafted.
Thanks for keeping businesses honest, Republicans.
Utah shouldn't be taken seriously. If they could, I'm sure their Supreme Court would also make LDS the state religion.
If we know that maybe we could crowd-fund the purchase of enough to get any law we want passed.
Here are the benefits of a dealer network as provided by the National Automobile Dealers Association:
1) Better pricing when there are lots of dealers in your location. Bad pricing when there few. 2) Manufactures gain free distribution channel that they would otherwise have to pay for themselves.
All I see is a non-efficient layer that extracts profits by jacking up prices.
Utah is a chickenshit state anyways full of morons.
Utah will now have to make Apple stores independent with no financial ties to Apple.
That's exactly what unions are. Unfortunately, many of htem turned into evil monopolies.
Does anyone actually believe, or at least legitimately understand the position, that auto manufacturers should not be able to sell directly to consumers? I'm genuinely curious. There are many cases of seemingly anti-consumer regulation where I can at least comprehend the logic of the other side (net neutrality being the first that comes to mind), but in this case I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership groups.
I'm not an American, but couldn't this be considered interstate commerce which would be federally regulated?
To those that think we need more government intrusion in our lives to save us from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming I give this incident as just one example of many on why we cannot rely on government to save us. If we want to see CAGW averted then we need to do this through non-government means.
We are going to see CAGW averted not because of government but in spite of it. It's the government that propped up GM when it was near bankruptcy, several times now. Had GM gone under Tesla would have been able to buy up their old factories and be making more electric cars, and do so cheaper. We'd have seen a lot of GM employees out of work for a while, which would no doubt be unfortunate, but in the long run we'd have seen them back at work making electric cars faster and cheaper.
If you want to see electric cars gain in the market then we don't need government to interfere, we need them to get out of the way. Same goes for things like wind, solar, and nuclear power.
If we cannot get government out of the way then we'll have to do like what Tesla is doing and get creative. One thing that also must be done is refuse government subsidies, or at least choose very carefully which ones are taken. Those subsidies come with handcuffs. If you want the freedom to win in the market then you have to know you can do so without a government safety net.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
How long will Tesla be around. Just a few days ago a film that make hydrogen from sunlight and water was announced . This film now makes hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen cars feasible. Yes, hydrogen could be used to power a generator to power an electric car, but it is more efficient to power a car directly with an internal combustion engine powered by hydrogen. Look ma, no ozone produce with hydrogen either - just water.
Which contradicts the very write-up (and TFA):
WTF, Slashdot? Submitter may make a mistake — but editors ought to know better...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A law is struck down when it's overridden by a higher law. When two laws conflict, a court must decide which one controls. Mostly you hear about it in the popular press when a state or federal statute conflicts with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It can also be a state law overriding a city ordinance, or a federal law overriding a state one.
An appointed judge can't, and shouldn't, write the law themselves because they don't like the law written by the elected legislature. What a judge does in these cases is take note, and rule, that some higher law overrides a lower one.
Fyi these laws were passed mostly by Democrats, in the 1940s through 1960s. The pitch to the public was against the big bad auto companies, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Of course there were plenty of campaign contributions from auto dealers, who didn't want to be cut out of the action. Still today auto dealers are significant players in state and local politics.
What if there is no dealer in the area ? How the hell are you supposed to buy a particular brand if there is no dealer in the area. This isn't for the consumer benefit, but to preserve the manufacturer monopoly via exclusive dealership arrangements. I should be able to buy a car at Sam's/Walmart just like I buy any other product.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
The court's ruling supports the commission's right to bar direct sales. Perhaps saying that the ruling bars direct sales is not completely correct but it is the effective result of the ruling.
> I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership
Car dealers bought these laws, mostly in the 1940s through 1960s. The excuse to the public was basically "car manufacturers are large corporations, and therefore bad". It doesn't make a lot of sense, but few voters cared enough to think about it, and to be quite frank, you generally *need* a good argument to get Democrat voters to accept a law against the big o' corporation versus the "little guy" car dealer. Even though the "little guys" have tens of millions of dollars EACH. (These laws were mostly passed by Democrat legislatures).
> Anyone is free to use this idea to found a Kickstarter-like company aimed t achieving this goal. I claim no ownership, nor credit. GO DO IT!
Great idea! I think our group's first issue should be that laws should respect our Constitutional freedoms. Maybe the most clear-cut example, so a good one to start with, is the second amendment. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear, and the people who wrote those words also wrote quite a bit about what those words mean, so it's pretty clear. "Bear arms" is what they had just done defeating the British army. They did so as militias, about which they wrote "the militia is the whole people". So there is a good place for us to start.
Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think we should start by passing laws that pretend the Constitution doesn't exist, or that Washington bureaucrats should "interpret" the Constitution to mean the opposite of what it says. We can start TWO Kickstarter projects. We'll call the pro-Constitution one the "National Rifle Association" and the anti-Constitution one "Americans for Responsible Solutions".
What you "take no credit for inventing" are called lobbies. The EFF is a lobby, they employ people called lobbyists. PETA and MADD are lobbies. They advocate for ("buy politicians for") the issues their members care about.
> could up-end the intrinsic corporate dominance that the Citizens United decision has resulted in since the ruling
Can you tell me what difference you saw, exactly, between 2002 and 2008? McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002, effective for the 2004 elections, and struck down in 2008 by the Citizens United ruling, which said that you ARE free to donate to the EFF, the ACLU, or other group of your choice in order to make your voice heard on political issues. In other words, rather than just standing on a street corner yelling, you can cooperate with other citizens to make a film expressing your political opinion. That was true from the founding of the country until 2002, so what great improvement did you see from 2002-2008 when groups like EFF and ACLU couldn't legally advocate during the peak of the election season?
I know, I know, if you get your news from certain comedians, you've heard the joke about "corporations are people". Yes, a corporation can be sued in court, a corporation can be regulated by law, etc. If Ford sells you a dangerous car, you might want to sue someone. Rather than finding which employee made the bad weld, you can sue the corporation, the corporation is a legal person. That's actually the definition of a corporation - a cooperative group treated as a legal person, so they can be sued, regulated, etc.
That concept was created by the ancient Romans. When an aqueduct needed to be built, rather than seperately hiring a thousand stone masons, the Roman Senate contacted with a group of stone masons, called corporation, to build the aqueduct. Citizen's United didn't create the corporation as a legal person, Cicero did, and Pope Innocent IV popularized it outside of Rome. SCOTUS simply noticed it, once again (for upteenth time).
Wendover is about a 2 hour drive from Salt Lake City. Many of the Casio's supply a "fun bus" that ferry people from UT to enjoy all the other things that are illegal, too. I'm just sad that UT will, once again, miss out on taxes that they should be getting.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
Unfortunately, you did not answer my question, but in response to your statements, not so, as sadly, unexercised power is often prone to injustice as well, though in fact, I believe you will also find that the oppressors will often claim they are unfairly hindered, as well as seeking to impair the ability of those others to do rightful acts.
So again, why have courts if you do not demand justice from them?
Unfortunately, you did not answer my question
No. I think I was quite fortunate. I will not answer your loaded question (loaded because it falsely implies that I did not "demand justice" from courts) because it isn't worth answering due both to the obvious of the answer and to the irrelevance to what anyone else has posted here.
They are indeed politicians, funded by those who benefit from this law. As the summary mentions, it looked like there was a chance the law would be changed, but it wasn't because the citizens don't care strongly enough about this issue. It's not going to change any significant number of votes.
Technically, they aren't *hypocrites*, they know it's bad law. A hypocrite would *say* they believe free markets work better than rule by bureaucrat, but not actually believe that. I'm sure these lawmakers believe what they say on that point. They also know who their donors are.
Why do the Americans have all these crappy rules, I thought it was the land of the free and brave
why do we need humans to judge? Replace them with a simple expert program and save a huge amount of cash on the court system and government.
The Jury is supposed to do that, but in this case there's no jury, so the judge must judge as if they were a jury. Not just interpret the blank wording of the law. For which we do not need any human involved.
When you say the law is there to prevent direct sales to customers, but making a subsidiary makes a mockery of it, what is the intent of preventing direct sales to customers? And should that be the law?
Because the intent of disallowing direct sales is meaningless without you saying.
And then please explain franchises in the light of that intent, given that they're precisely the same damn thing, but just for other services.
Quote: "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts."
I know Utah is weird, but the "car dealers" and "automakers" have a veto over state government and the media reports this as though it's somehow normal? What part of "democracy" do Americans not understand?
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
The "not completely correct" is a spin on incorrect. Which was my point.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There must be equal protection under the law. If any other auto manufacturers are allowed to do that, then so is Tesla
why have courts if you do not demand justice from them?
Because you are missing the point that justice is blind. "Demand justice" for who? in what case? for what law? What is the just process for changing a law? The people will be forced to follow the law and they vote for the legislature that write the laws.
You do not have justice if a judge has an agenda before seeing the facts of the case. Nor do you have justice if a judge does the job of the peoples representatives.
Is it not just to allow the elected legislature write the laws the people want? If so, then it is also just that any judge must not be an activist judge by changing the law to fit their definition of "justice" because you are not being just to the people and the legislature they elected for the intent of writing the law.
Justice cannot be blind if you are willing to have judges rewrite the laws to their prejudices.
It's amusing how conservative supporters hate regulating business. But if a new way to do business pops up they manipulate government with legislation to protect their interests.
It's alt-correct these days.
Try telling Apple that they can't open an Apple Store. Or Tiffany. Or Nike.
Maybe we need a right-to-compete law instead of just a right-to-work law.
go to an Apple store, do they have the same hesitations to buy from a manufacturer??
Because you are missing the point that justice is blind.
What point is that? It doesn't seem present in khallow's arguments, so if you could show me where I might find it, I'd appreciate it.
I think it's merely one of yours, however, I find it to be mistaken. The phrase "Justice is blind" does not mean what you seem to think it would, as the point of justice being blind is a reference to status, an issue that is not involved here.
I think you've heard this truism somewhere, and are just trying to shovel it into supporting your argument, when it really doesn't apply
"Demand justice" for who? in what case? for what law?
They call it "Justice for All" if you haven't noticed. Which is also a truism, but you did ask, so that is how I must answer.
What is the just process for changing a law?
The process that achieves such change as establishes justice. In fact, this is the express statement in my state's constitution:
That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the
advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive
of the good and happiness of mankind.
Of course, it doesn't expressly mention justice, nonetheless, if we take justice as a goal, then as I support the right of the people to act in the above manner, it too, is covered under these principles. The real trick, however, is what to do when the people are not pursuing a rightful and just cause. That's the fly in the soup, as it were.
The people will be forced to follow the law and they vote for the legislature that write the laws.
Will they? Even if the law is unjust, and the legislature did not act in the interests of the people? Not where I live. See above.
That is the point of my question, why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
You do not have justice if a judge has an agenda before seeing the facts of the case.
A non-sequitur. A judge with an agenda may have justice in mind(that is an agenda, is it not?), or they may have some injustice, and the facts of the case may or may not be material to either. In any case, the question I asked is not "How much a judge achieve justice" for which weighing the facts may have some merit, but rather, "why have courts if you do not demand justice from them?" which would include any such objections as you might be bringing here.
Nor do you have justice if a judge does the job of the peoples representatives.
A judge is the representative of the people, who else would they serve?
Is it not just to allow the elected legislature write the laws the people want?
Ah, a difficult question. First, you must be assuming that the laws as written are ones that the people want, and then that the people's wants are just.
Neither can be taken as a given, however.
If so, then it is also just that any judge must not be an activist judge by changing the law to fit their definition of "justice" because you are not being just to the people and the legislature they elected for the intent of writing the law.
An here's an argument made without its supporting evidence. You've not established any assertions to validate this set conclusions, but instead are just leaping ahead to validate something that it seems to me that you just want to be true.
I am not sure you are really thinking abou
Unfortunately, you did not answer my question
No. I think I was quite fortunate. I will not answer your loaded question (loaded because it falsely implies that I did not "demand justice" from courts) because it isn't worth answering due both to the obvious of the answer and to the irrelevance to what anyone else has posted here.
I'm afraid that you, khallow, with your own:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
that you will have to face up to your own loaded question, of a character that could be considered irrelevant, in particular to glitch!'s remarks. Thus making your objection here to be less meritorious, and thus needed in examination in itself.
Which is why I put forth to you, a question that hits more at the foundations here, why have courts, (or even the other branches), if you do not demand they deliver justice?
I would put up brand new Tesla sales distributor on every major highway that runs through Utah, just outside the state border. Even if the building sits in the middle of no where.
Then every year I'd send a summary statement to Utah showing them just how much Tesla spent on building construction, local taxes and workforce employment. All the benefits that slipped through Utah's hands.
I love how these rants always jump straight into the second amendment when the first has been under fire for so long that its barely recognizable and the fourth and fifth are under heavy fire daily right now and the 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th are quite subject to interpretation of words like "excessive" and "speedy." I notice not too many people bemoan the loss of the 18th either.
The 2nd is probably the least-diminished of the "well-known" amendments (admittedly in large part due to the tireless lobbying of the NRA. Sure you have to jump through a few hoops in some jurisdictions but for the most part you can get your guns without too much trouble as long as you don't have a record.) So why is it always the jumping off (and frequently only) point for red rants about the erosion of the constitution?
Free speech? Privacy? Who needs that shit when we can all just go out and shoot things!
A year ago the average price for a new car was $33,666. The Model 3 is not be for the one percenters. http://mediaroom.kbb.com/new-c...
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Courts and judges are part of the legal system.
There IS NO 'justice system'.
It does not exist and never did except as a set of moral goals and standards in the hearts of men. "Justice" is moral and relative, changing with individual circumstance and the opinion of the observer, and therefor can never be codified into law.
In order to achieve the closest thing to "justice" within the limitations of men, the law must be interpreted as written in all cases, because courts and judges are determiners of legalities, not warriors for someone's opinion on what is "just".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The point in my post was about opposing sides, represented to by opposing lobbyists. The post I replied to suggested "we the people" should be a lobby, hiring lobbyists. My point is that we do - thing is, since "we the people disagree", we are opposing lobbies, we hire opposing lobbyists.
I don't think people argue too much about excessive bail or speedy trial, so those would be very bad examples.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Courts and judges are part of the legal system.
There IS NO 'justice system'.
Really, why? Is there somewhere this is defined? What principles of government specifically establish these contentions of yours? Nowhere?
Or are you just making a poor attempt at fallacious reasoning in order to ignore the problem? Nowhere are your terms used in either the US or Utah Constitutions, making any reference to them as a matter of distinction on your part into a purely arbitrary contention of no particular merit.
And in fact, FWIW, there are courts specifically referred to as "Courts of Justice" or "Justice Courts" such as Montana's, Kentucky's, and yes, even Utah.
So no, you can't even assert that they make a pointed effort to avoid such terms in their own usages just by their states names. Furthermore, by observing their statements of principles and moral axioms, of course, you can see that they do make a concerted and deliberate reference to actual justice.
Or how else am I supposed to take their oath of office: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." ?
There are further examples, both in historical reference and modern development, to establish the place of "Justice" in the provenance of the courts, and even int the executive (It is called the Justice Department, not the Law Department), but I think the mere existence of the oath shows that your argument lacks merit.
It does not exist and never did except as a set of moral goals and standards in the hearts of men. "Justice" is moral and relative, changing with individual circumstance and the opinion of the observer, and therefor can never be codified into law.
Oh, did you think that this is an inherent objection to justice then? If so, why? You seem to be troubled over circumstances and observations, as if it was not a known obligation of justice, which is accepted and recognized, but perhaps you can explain if you meant something else.
In order to achieve the closest thing to "justice" within the limitations of men, the law must be interpreted as written in all cases, because courts and judges are determiners of legalities, not warriors for someone's opinion on what is "just".
You left off your reasoning(which is a bad thing), and contrary to your asertion, if the law is written in some way that is not just, then it is actually going further from justice when you adhere to the law over justice and when you rely on the naive view that purporting to adhere to the law as written is superior, the only thing you are doing is subsuming your obligation to responsibility for your moral decisions by passing it others.
However, even if you had bothered to make such an argument, it would not do anything to undo how your first assertion rings false, to the contrary, judges and their courts are bound by their own statements to justice. That alone is severely discrediting to you. It comes across as if you are merely making slipshod, unconsidered statements to try to advance some pre-established narrative cause, rather than making a truly principled argument that can be weighed and measured on its own merits.
Sorry, Bluestrat, you may used to dealing with people ignorant enough to be fooled by your pomposity, but there are people who can point out the hollow
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
that you will have to face up to your own loaded question, of a character that could be considered irrelevant, in particular to glitch!'s remarks.
Words have meaning. Loaded question doesn't mean "I'm butthurt because someone on the internets disagrees with me." Instead it means
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
What is being assumed in my question:
Why have the other branches then?
Obviously, there is the assumption that there are more than one branch in some sort of democratic government context which is justified given glitch! explicitly mentioned two branches of government, legislative and courts. And there's the implication that this somehow neuters the legislature (which was the key point of my observation and a clear problem with glitch!'s post which several people noted).
And that's it. It's not a big question so there's not a lot of assumptions hidden in it.
As to "could be considered irrelevant", I suggest you don't do that. A court which can reinterpret legislation without regard for the writing or intent has the power to craft their own law. What is the point of a legislature which can be overridden and bypassed at will by the courts?
glitch! said courts should be able to do these things without regard for the abuses of power that this leads to. That's why courts usually don't have that power in the first place.
Very few titles or even summaries are correct under that criteria, even articles would frequently be incorrect if that's the way you judge.
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
that you will have to face up to your own loaded question, of a character that could be considered irrelevant, in particular to glitch!'s remarks.
Words have meaning. Loaded question doesn't mean "I'm butthurt because someone on the internets disagrees with me."
Yes, yes, you are butthurt, I know. That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.
Instead it means
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
What is being assumed in my question:
Why have the other branches then?
Please, quote your entire post, it becomes more apparent when we add your entire post, to show your specific remarks:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.
Obviously, there is the assumption that there are more than one branch in some sort of democratic government context which is justified given glitch! explicitly mentioned two branches of government, legislative and courts.
Indeed, the lack of justification comes from your assumption of there being some call to eliminate the others, rather than not noting the existence of them, though I would understand if you merely objected to a lack of presentation of the executive.
And there's the implication that this somehow neuters the legislature (which was the key point of my observation and a clear problem with glitch!'s post which several people noted).
You mean the concept of "Checks and Balances" as it is known?
But no, I don't see where several people have made such notes about glitch!'s post, and some of the replies are far from sound themselves. Some far more unsound than others at that.
And that's it. It's not a big question so there's not a lot of assumptions hidden in it.
Ah, you cannot object on matters of size, that would be farcical on your part. What with the sizes being comparable, as it were.
As to "could be considered irrelevant", I suggest you don't do that.
You're the one who put character into your words, I suggest you refrain from such characterizations, and instead try a more neutral phrasing yourself, if you wish to raise forth the objections you have regarding loaded questions.
A court which can reinterpret legislation without regard for the writing or intent has the power to craft their own law. What is the point of a legislature which can be overridden and bypassed at will by the courts?
What is the point of a court that does not do justice? A court that is compelled to adhere to legislation without regard for justice might as well be replaced by a dictatorial tyrant. Where is that Cincinnatus fellow, I heard he's good at it.
glitch! said courts should be able to do these things without regard for the abuses of power that this leads to. That's why courts usually don't have that power in the first place.
And there's a bit more of your assumption. You're assuming an abuse of
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
It wasn't part of the question so no, I disagree. That post was just two sentences with a very important point you continue to ignore. It's amazing how you keep digging this hole deeper.
You're assuming an abuse of power from the courts, while glitch! was remarking on the abuses of the legislature
Of course! You should too. Just because other branches have their own opportunities for abuse doesn't mean that we should escalate by creating a very abusable power for the courts as well.
To use a car analogy, if some part of your control system: steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, etc is too responsible, you don't fix it by making another part too responsive as well. Two broken components don't counter each other.
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
It wasn't part of the question so no, I disagree.
It remains part of your post, and emphasizes your character to the degree which it cannot be ignored. Sorry, but you loaded up, and shot off your mouth.
Too bad you were aiming at your own foot.
That post was just two sentences with a very important point you continue to ignore.
You're the one who is ignoring my point: Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
If you think I'm ignoring some point of yours, you'll have to identify it.
It's amazing how you keep digging this hole deeper.
Do you need more rope, or have the Japanese taken it all, in their desire to build the Yamato, a vessel which ultimately became of no great importance in their war?
You're assuming an abuse of power from the courts, while glitch! was remarking on the abuses of the legislature
Of course! You should too.
Again, see the admission here? Why bother with the denial then? At least admit to your own conduct.
Me, I haven't even spoken as to what I think should be done about the courts, but neither did glitch! for that matter. You might have inquired, but you didn't.
You just assumed. Which is a problem when you're all indignant over that being applied to yourself.
No wonder you want to ignore my point. You know, the one about getting to the foundation of why courts exist.
Just because other branches have their own opportunities for abuse doesn't mean that we should escalate by creating a very abusable power for the courts as well.
Except it's not about power, it is actually about emphasizing the focus of the courts on its duty. That might be construed as escalation, if you take it as heightening their responsibilities, but I suspect that would not be the meaning you intended. Sorry, but your apprehension of the situation is flawed.
This isn't about giving them new powers, but stating their obligations, given the aforementioned actions of the legislature, and the conflicts that they can have with justice. All glitch! stated was that they should dismiss cases when the outcome is unjust. That is not a new power. It is merely a responsibility to examine their own actions, rather than blindly obey the flawed dictates of a questionable authority.
To use a car analogy, if some part of your control system: steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, etc is too responsible, you don't fix it by making another part too responsive as well. Two broken components don't counter each other.
Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.
And that's not even bringing up the issue of the driver. Which really messes up the analogy, since that's a control system not applicable to either, unless you have some particular religious beliefs, I suppose.
I'll summarize my position for any readers still here. glitch! wrote:
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law. At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.
In response, I asked the obvious:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
My reply:
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
I do the important thing that one does when answering a loaded question. I point out the flawed assumption and why it is flawed. Here, I do not support an unjust court and I pointed out how checks on the power of courts further the cause of justice. Thus, the question in addition to its other unsavory characteristics is irrelevant to my point.
That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.
Once again, your question was not worth answering, but you had to forge on with an annoying and erroneous tu quoque fallacy. You have yet to show why my question was supposedly loaded. It would have at least given me an opportunity to explain the error in your reasoning, should you have tried. But this is the best you mustered:
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.
There's nothing to rebut there since that wasn't even a coherent statement much less a controversial or unjustified assumption of the question I asked. Oh well.
That's when the verbal diarrhea started. You can insist with multiple paragraphs all sorts of false things, but those remain false. Similarly, writing more about dumb ideas and claims doesn't make those any smarter.
Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.
You're not even wrong here. You're not talking about my point at all. It doesn't matter if there are automated systems involved. My point is
Shill from automotive industry "LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY!!"
Politician "No"
Shill "*removes shirt* LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY!!"
Politician "Maybe"
Shill "*removes bra* LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY!!"
Politician "I'll ban it."
Who would have ever thought that something like this could happen in America? That rich people and big corporations could control the government?
It's almost like America isn't a democracy after all.
It's remarkable how this keeps going on and on. If only you would think instead of running your mouth.
Think what? Only what you want and find acceptable? Hmm, nope! Thinking you're still lacking in the self-realization necessary to act responsibly? Well, that's your problem, not mine. I felt no need to remark upon it myself.
I'll summarize my position for any readers still here.
And you'll want to read my responses. Carefully, and with full consideration.
glitch! wrote:
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law.
Actually, what you're missing is that glitch! was responding to someone who made a claim themselves, specifically disclaiming the evaluation of intent of the legislature being judged by the court. Yet glitch! made the note that the legislature often passes laws that they do expect the judiciary (and the executive) to fill in some bits based on their intent. Thus making it important to identify the most important duty of the courts, namely justice. Almost inescapable.
The most quibble I would offer, is that glitch! should have expressed "I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. " somewhat better, adding a qualifier such as "not simply the letter of the law" to address some consideration of the law as written. However, I can forgive that kind of minor failing.
At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.
Nope, sorry, that is not evident from glitch!'s statement, which does not address changing the law, in fact, the only specific action of the courts is to dismiss a case. Not to change the law. And no, it's not completely dis-empowering the legislature at all.
What it is doing, and this is important, is setting forth the obligation of the judiciary. To do justice. Not to subsume that duty to become beholden strictly to the letter of the law.
In response, I asked the obvious:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Notice your presumption inherent in the very question you asked, and your own following sentences. Had you merely sought to inquire, you wouldn't have made those statements, but you did, putting forth your own assumptions into it.
Hence the reason for my own inquiry, which you continue to uselessly assail, what with your own hypocrisy being demonstrated.
You jumped right into the hole on that one.
My reply:
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
Of course, as already noted, your concerns about a court with unchecked power are not particularly applicable, as nobody is making that assertion. The asser