The Burden of Supremacy

[aggienaut]

   I oftentimes find myself wishing I wasn't part of the highest judicial authority in ASUCD -- wishing that there was some appeal above me. Unlike everyone else, I don't get the priviledge of being vindicated by being proved right by higher court.
   Former senator Darth Lloyd says "The Court's improper action was the reason for removing its authority. What Kris's proposed action overlooks is that it violates the constitution," and senatorroy says "had they not requested Senators elected in Fall 2004 to still sit at the Senate table to determine the legitimacy of the court’s opinion, despite that the constitution explicitly states no Senator’s term shall last longer than a year, then I would have heard the court’s opinion." Now, of course, the latter quote would seriously have any lawyer or elected official ROFLing their asses off (since the method he's disparaging is how its done in every "real world" situation), but I hate to depend on the involved to take my word for it (they evidently haven't anyway)(as to the former, it is literally impossible for the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, I know this answer is unsatisfying, thats why this entry is about my wish for vindication). When we amended the judicial article of the Constitution last winter I personally was in favour of allowing cases alleging the Court was in violation of the Constitution to go to the Campus Judicial Board, but that didn't happen, due to concerns about subjecting our judicial system to an administration body.
   Furthermore the fact that any idea that comes up in Court is in a certain sense appealed instantly to the other justices seems to be given no weight. I've only been in two meetings with the other justices so far, so you can't honestly allege they've all fallen to my jedi persuasion yet. The first thing I always tell all new justices is "we have what is written, and everything else, even what I'm saying right now, is just an opinion," and the second thing I say is "never feel like you can't disagree with me, even adamently," and on every substansive matter I never speak first. When the justices were all confirmed by Senate, the Senate could have implaced justices that would take a very strict literal interpretation of the bylaws a la former Justice Raff, but at that time they chose the people whose opinion they now discard. All this is to say I find it silly that the Court is seen as my opinion (see first quote), or to imply the Senate knows jurisprudence better than us.
   Anyway, despite these things, I am confident that an analogious body would absolutely uphold our rulings, if not find in a manner even more unpleasant to our detractors. If any senator wishes to take me up on this, I welcome you to arrange for either (1) the Courts of any two other UCs to consider the constitutionality of our rulings, or (2) an ad-hoc Court of the collective Chief Justices of the UCs (minus me of course) to consider the constitutionality of our rulings. It would of course be informal from their end, but if they find against my court I'll see to it that our rulings are retracted and future rulings more limited (and at the very least I'll admit to being completely pwned - though be prepared for the same). Though arguments will probably be made electronically, we'll come up with a fair way to moderate that, and the selection of any two Courts must of course not take into consideration how one expects each court to rule. I have not communicated with any of them regarding this case.
   Or another similarly fair system would be acceptable to me if someone thinks of something. The bottem line is: we are the Court, we are your judicial authority, and we fully believe that our opinion has been as just as possible and would be vindicated by an analogious body.
   The truth shall set you free, and history shall justify me. (=


In Other News
   Kristy and I went to another party at Sarah Jones' place Saturday night. The theme was "ghetto" so Kristy and I got all ghettofied (archival footage of what it may have looked like). My camera is still out of commission but hopefully we'll pull some decent pictures off someone else's camera. I wore my wallet chain around my neck as "bling" and wore a a sideways baseball cap. Kristy wore a pink bandana on her head, lipliner without lipstick, and sagged her sweatpants (exposing her "rubber ducky" boxers). It was good times. Someone puked in her cup when she set it down (omgwtf?!). Eventually for unclear reasons the power went out (not due to the circuit breakers?) and everyone dispersed.


Picture of the Day

from the archives


Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Yesterday: Recalcetrance in SGAO - SGAO refuses to do any work for the ASUCD Supreme Court ... Speculation that they might be found in Contempt of the Court.

Comments

[dubloon.livejournal.com]

Kris- I was thinking the same thing. I was recently in Berkeley and left a message for court system there to see if they would be interested in setting up some sort of informal dialogue. I was thinking about that idea a lot- some sort of forum between justices statewide across the UC system. I can start to contact them, not just for this particular issue, but as a kind of continuing, recurring dialogue, for any kind of issues to be debated and discussed throughout the system

-Tim

[furzicle.livejournal.com]

"oftentimes find myself wishing I wasn't part of the highest judicial authority in ASUCD -- wishing that there was some appeal above me. Unlike everyone else, I don't get the priviledge of being vindicated by being proved right by higher court."

It must be a bummer to be on the Supreme Court of the US!

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Its like how atheletes are said to get depressed once they've made it to the olympics because tehy've gone as far as they can go -- or the unsatisfaction of playing a game with cheat codes.

At least in the US Supreme Court the debate things so novel and arcane that there is usually debate between the justices, and they can at least validate their existence by overcoming the resistence of their peers.

In ASUCD often the answers are glaringly clear due to precedence long since established in state and national law. And so it becomes a debate between us on the Court who believe in jurisprudence, and those outside the Court who believe in imagining solutions and then insisting that anyone who disagrees is illegitimate.

[twinkiebat.livejournal.com]

cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute!

cute

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

You're talking about me dressed up all ghetto, right? =D

[thepeoplesmp.livejournal.com]

Just as a hypothetical, could one of the non-elected (i.e. affected) parties of this doctrine of non-acceptance of the ruling by the senate seek injunctive relief from the supreme court, and, in essence, appeal the decision of the senate?

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but there is a well entrenched precedent that the branches don't tell eachother what to do -- ie the Court doesn't issue injunctions against what goes on in the Senate chambers (though we can of course find their actions unconstitutional after the fact), and the Senate doesn't say, tell the Court what cases it can and cannot accept (but of course it does in a general sense, and if they changed a law a case was about the Court would probably drop it ... but they cannot compell the Court to drop it)

[orwell-troll.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure the Senate actually did tell the court to drop a case in SB #36 ... though that may be removed one way or another.

[ashael.livejournal.com]

Yay Bailey!

Ferrets

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Didn't you promise us pictures of your ferrets some time ago? How are they?

Re: Ferrets

[ashael.livejournal.com]

Ferret... I only have one now. And I probably did. I need to borrow my aunts cam and take some pictures of the ferret, cat and dog.