The DOJ is not a knight in shining armor, however, what people seem to be expecting is that the DOJ will argue *against* that which it is tasked with defending.
The DOJ is a legal advocate and resource for the federal government, not a shining beacon of objectivity with free reign to go against its client's own interests.
Constitutionality is for the courts to decide, opinions on legal applicability and constitutionality can be done by all interested parties, and those who are in standing to request opinions from the DOJ (i.e. federal government entities).
There's nothing scandalous here. It *seems* to be that people think that Obama being elected was going to undo copyright law. I don't understand why that would even be within the realm of imagining, other than people don't know how the US government and legal system works.
Absolutely nothing, but it has everything to do with the strength of your argument, which also isn't relevant to the job of the DOJ.
It's entirely relevant to the job of the DOJ. If you haven't noticed, NYCL isn't exactly the most objective in this particular subject matter.
Furthermore, there's a lot of presumption that I necessarily agree with the DOJ's argument. What I think of their argument is irrelevant. The fact that its their job to *make* the case that the law is applicable is at hand.
As for your second remark, the whole legal system is disingenuous!
Okay. Let us do away with it. What do you suggest we replace it with?
Are you saying that 99% of the DOJ is without any political alignment whatsoever? What about alignment to the guys cutting their checks? Our whole government is comprised of self-interested people making self-centered decisions, it's not evil or wrong, it's just how it is. We set up our system to rely on these traits and exploit them, not to pretend that they're nonexistent.
No, I'm saying that most people who work in government take pride in doing their jobs well. You may not agree with their motivations, but since the vast majority of them do not hold jobs that are beholden to whoever happens to be in the White House at the time, the idea that they are all in there, angling for some sort of Internet-forum "gotcha" moment is a dubious one, at best.
Yes, but when push comes to shove, the DOJ when asked if a law is enforcable and legal, will argue that it is.
What confuses people is that the DOJ can also sue and suggest that a law is unconstitutional.
I guess I don't understand the outrage. This is exactly what I would expect the DOJ to do, regardless of who is in the chief executive position this month.
What relevance does that have as to the job of the DOJ?
The funny thing about most of this is that the DOJ is 99% career employees, not political folks. They do the same jobs no matter who is in in the White House. To make this sound like its a political matter is, to say the least, disingenuous.
Umm, no. Yes, I do understand that the Supreme Court has claimed the privilege to be the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws. But that is written nowhere in the Constitution.
Strict constructionists are like children with hands in front of their eyes. The brick wall doesn't exist until they've already run into it.
In this case, I don't know the particulars as to why. There's a variety of ways that people who are not direct participants can file briefs in cases, though. It's a common occurrence.
The DOJ's job is to defend the laws. The Courts' job is to determine Constitutionality. The DOJ is simply arguing in the favor of the interests of those they defend (Congress, here) in the case of legally passed laws.
Sure. And, to be sure, this is a more complex discussion than is easy to express on a forum.
However, in this situation, where the question is "do we think that the law as legally passed is constitutional", the DOJ is obliged to say, "yes, we do," because they are the legal representatives of the body that passed the law.
The DOJ's job is not to determine if a *law as passed* is constitutional. That's the court system's job. They can, indeed, argue that something is unconstitutional, but if the federal government is party to a lawsuit, the DOJ's job is to defend it.
Do you have a court case where the DOJ said, "yeah it's a law, but we think it shouldn't be" in that regard?
Again, funding and priorities are one thing, and can be directed by the chief executive. Defending laws against litigation, however, is another thing entirely. Picking and choosing what to defend in court leads to some very potentially dark results.
Obama can't decide which laws to defend in court. It's an entirely different thing.
One is defending a program that is within his power to do, so long as the program is in the purview of the executive branch. The other is picking and choosing which laws (passed legally by the legislature) the executive branch will choose to defend.
If you will recall, the GWB administration tried to get around this with signing statements. If you will recall, they were *slightly* controversial.
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed. They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
What happened to news reporters doing actual investigative journalism and research to try and bring the public a deep perspective on something?
It costs money to keep journalists on staff that may only produce one or two long articles a year. And since they are long and in-depth, few people will read them. Even fewer will pay to read them, these days, since apparently everything on the Internet is supposed to be free.
It's a deadly circle. Expecting news reports to be perfect is unreasonable. Reading them anyway just because they're "free" is feeding the problem.
People who think that Teabaggers are reasonable, intelligent members of a grassroots political group consider the NYT to be of dubious journalistic quality.
You don't want to lose them; they do important work as the Fourth Estate on the local level. But nobody seems to care much about it.
I think people believe that good reporting appears out of nowhere, or something of that sort. They also seem to think that bloggers are the equivalent to professional journalists, instead of simply being the web equivalent of "talking heads".
I mourn for the loss of a vibrant press in the US simply because people want shit for free and can't stand to pay a buck for a paper.
Slashdot Mirror
The DOJ is not a knight in shining armor, however, what people seem to be expecting is that the DOJ will argue *against* that which it is tasked with defending.
The DOJ is a legal advocate and resource for the federal government, not a shining beacon of objectivity with free reign to go against its client's own interests.
Constitutionality is for the courts to decide, opinions on legal applicability and constitutionality can be done by all interested parties, and those who are in standing to request opinions from the DOJ (i.e. federal government entities).
There's nothing scandalous here. It *seems* to be that people think that Obama being elected was going to undo copyright law. I don't understand why that would even be within the realm of imagining, other than people don't know how the US government and legal system works.
Absolutely nothing, but it has everything to do with the strength of your argument, which also isn't relevant to the job of the DOJ.
It's entirely relevant to the job of the DOJ. If you haven't noticed, NYCL isn't exactly the most objective in this particular subject matter.
Furthermore, there's a lot of presumption that I necessarily agree with the DOJ's argument. What I think of their argument is irrelevant. The fact that its their job to *make* the case that the law is applicable is at hand.
As for your second remark, the whole legal system is disingenuous!
Okay. Let us do away with it. What do you suggest we replace it with?
Are you saying that 99% of the DOJ is without any political alignment whatsoever? What about alignment to the guys cutting their checks? Our whole government is comprised of self-interested people making self-centered decisions, it's not evil or wrong, it's just how it is. We set up our system to rely on these traits and exploit them, not to pretend that they're nonexistent.
No, I'm saying that most people who work in government take pride in doing their jobs well. You may not agree with their motivations, but since the vast majority of them do not hold jobs that are beholden to whoever happens to be in the White House at the time, the idea that they are all in there, angling for some sort of Internet-forum "gotcha" moment is a dubious one, at best.
Yes, but when push comes to shove, the DOJ when asked if a law is enforcable and legal, will argue that it is.
What confuses people is that the DOJ can also sue and suggest that a law is unconstitutional.
I guess I don't understand the outrage. This is exactly what I would expect the DOJ to do, regardless of who is in the chief executive position this month.
Citation Please. NYCL is, in fact, a lawyer.
What relevance does that have as to the job of the DOJ?
The funny thing about most of this is that the DOJ is 99% career employees, not political folks. They do the same jobs no matter who is in in the White House. To make this sound like its a political matter is, to say the least, disingenuous.
Umm, no. Yes, I do understand that the Supreme Court has claimed the privilege to be the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws. But that is written nowhere in the Constitution.
Strict constructionists are like children with hands in front of their eyes. The brick wall doesn't exist until they've already run into it.
In this case, I don't know the particulars as to why. There's a variety of ways that people who are not direct participants can file briefs in cases, though. It's a common occurrence.
Problematic, isn't it? What other laws could the DOJ perhaps desire to not enforce on a whim? We really don't want to go there.
You can sue the federal government alleging that a law is unconstitutional, regardless of the existence of prosecution.
The DOJ's job is to defend the laws. The Courts' job is to determine Constitutionality. The DOJ is simply arguing in the favor of the interests of those they defend (Congress, here) in the case of legally passed laws.
Because their job is to present the case as they see it, in the best interests of their clients (Congress) who passed the law.
Sure. And, to be sure, this is a more complex discussion than is easy to express on a forum.
However, in this situation, where the question is "do we think that the law as legally passed is constitutional", the DOJ is obliged to say, "yes, we do," because they are the legal representatives of the body that passed the law.
The DOJ's job is not to determine if a *law as passed* is constitutional. That's the court system's job. They can, indeed, argue that something is unconstitutional, but if the federal government is party to a lawsuit, the DOJ's job is to defend it.
The DOJ's job is not to determine if something is constitutional. That's the court system's job.
Do you have a court case where the DOJ said, "yeah it's a law, but we think it shouldn't be" in that regard?
Again, funding and priorities are one thing, and can be directed by the chief executive. Defending laws against litigation, however, is another thing entirely. Picking and choosing what to defend in court leads to some very potentially dark results.
One is defunding
Typo, sorry.
Obama can't decide which laws to defend in court. It's an entirely different thing.
One is defending a program that is within his power to do, so long as the program is in the purview of the executive branch. The other is picking and choosing which laws (passed legally by the legislature) the executive branch will choose to defend.
If you will recall, the GWB administration tried to get around this with signing statements. If you will recall, they were *slightly* controversial.
The DOJ defends the laws. The courts decide on Constitutionality.
I realize that "emotional appeals" and what not are en vogue lately when it comes to politics, though I dunno what exactly people think it helps.
It'd be far worse if the DOJ started picking and choosing which laws they wanted to enforce/defend.
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed. They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
Lrn2USLegalSystem and US Government, please.
I never had a crash for Enter the Matrix, myself. I actually quite enjoyed it. I may have been the only one, I guess.
The bonus footage that fit into "Reloaded" was cool, too. But, I'm in the minority of liking the majority of that trilogy, as well.
What happened to news reporters doing actual investigative journalism and research to try and bring the public a deep perspective on something?
It costs money to keep journalists on staff that may only produce one or two long articles a year. And since they are long and in-depth, few people will read them. Even fewer will pay to read them, these days, since apparently everything on the Internet is supposed to be free.
It's a deadly circle. Expecting news reports to be perfect is unreasonable. Reading them anyway just because they're "free" is feeding the problem.
Groklaw is the exception that proves the rule. It's also a bit too narrowly-focused and activist to be considered a "news source".
Maybe you're okay with that. I'm not.
Yeah, I'd say that, ideally, Google News should be redirecting people, not pulling up excerpts that allow people to avoid reading the article at all.
Oh good, I can pay Google to slowly become the gatekeeper of all news sources. Sounds like a capital idea! What could possibly go wrong?
People who think that Teabaggers are reasonable, intelligent members of a grassroots political group consider the NYT to be of dubious journalistic quality.
Fixed that for ya.
The last thing I want is to get my "primary news reporting" from bloggers. I can't imagine a more horrific future.
You don't want to lose them; they do important work as the Fourth Estate on the local level. But nobody seems to care much about it.
I think people believe that good reporting appears out of nowhere, or something of that sort. They also seem to think that bloggers are the equivalent to professional journalists, instead of simply being the web equivalent of "talking heads".
I mourn for the loss of a vibrant press in the US simply because people want shit for free and can't stand to pay a buck for a paper.