A partisan discussion of the rule of law

[Amelia]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously the piece is partisan, and it resonates with my observations.

.... Obama’s apparent appeal to pragmatism disguises his oscillation between extremes. One moment he is ideologically driven to use fealty to the rule of law to overcome the normal (if sometimes morally suspect) give-and-take -- the horse-trading, glad-handing, and compromise -- necessary for the effective practice of politics. Yet the next moment, he is ideologically driven to disdain legal process and the constraints of law.

The worthy alternative to the left-liberal sensibility is not one that is opposed to the universal claims of reason but rather one that involves a more judicious interpretation of reason. It holds, among other things, that it is unreasonable to attempt to make public policy decisions on the basis of abstract theories. It also emphasizes the wisdom of experience, and accords latitude to the exercise of practical judgment in balancing competing interests, opinions, and principles. It holds that government must be limited to secure the rights shared equally by all. And it holds that appreciating the limits of law is crucial to vindicating the majesty of the law.

....

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

 

[martybegan]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously it is partisan, and it resonates with my observances.

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

To me its less about the law per se, and more about the consitution, where liberals ignore it when it suits them, and run to it when it suits, them. You also see it when they hold more firmly onto court decsions they favor regardless of what the actual consitution says on the matter.

"The ends justifying the means" can be found on both sides, but is far more prevalent among progressive statists.

 

[Amelia]

This one seems like a biggie.

Scott Pruitt: ObamaCare's Next Legal Challenge - WSJ.com

The law says subsidies can only go through state-run exchanges.

As millions of Americans see their health-insurance premiums increase, have their coverage dropped as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and are unable to use the federal exchange, Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration. The Sooner State and several others are trying to stop the government from imposing tax penalties on certain states, businesses and individuals in defiance of the law. If these legal challenges are successful, the deficit spending associated with the new health-care law could be reduced by approximately $700 billion over the next decade.

While the president's health law is vast and extraordinarily complex, it is in one respect very simple. Subsidies are only to be made available, and tax penalties for not signing up for health insurance are only to be assessed, in states that create their own health-care exchange. The IRS, however, is attempting to enforce tax penalties in all states—including Oklahoma and the majority of the other states that have declined to create their own exchanges. Citizens and businesses in these states must use the federal exchange instead.

The distinction is critical, because under the terms of the law it is the availability of government insurance-premium subsidies that triggers the penalties against businesses if they fail to provide their employees with health insurance that the administration deems acceptable. This is a huge problem for the administration, which desperately needs to hand out tax credits and subsidies to the citizenry to quash the swelling backlash against the law.

When Oklahoma first raised this challenge in 2012, many experts predicted that the Sooner State would "go it alone" in pursuing this legal strategy. Not so. In Indiana, the state and 15 school districts have filed a lawsuit against the IRS, the agency that collects the penalties. Business owners (who, like the state of Oklahoma, would be subject to penalties as employers) and individuals in Virginia and the District of Columbia have done the same. In the D.C. lawsuit, the presiding judge recently rejected the Obama administration's attempt to have the case dismissed, as the judge in the Oklahoma case did in August.

Motions for summary judgment will soon be filed in federal district courts, and our court system will determine whether what the administration has called its "improvements" to the ACA—essentially by ignoring some of its provisions—are lawful.

....

There is a huge difference between delaying deadlines (or calling a mandate a tax after swearing it wasn't one) and claiming that a law applies, penalties and all, to the entire nation when the law explicitly states that it applies to a specific subset of the nation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This one seems like a biggie.

Scott Pruitt: ObamaCare's Next Legal Challenge - WSJ.com

The law says subsidies can only go through state-run exchanges.

As millions of Americans see their health-insurance premiums increase, have their coverage dropped as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and are unable to use the federal exchange, Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration. The Sooner State and several others are trying to stop the government from imposing tax penalties on certain states, businesses and individuals in defiance of the law. If these legal challenges are successful, the deficit spending associated with the new health-care law could be reduced by approximately $700 billion over the next decade.

While the president's health law is vast and extraordinarily complex, it is in one respect very simple. Subsidies are only to be made available, and tax penalties for not signing up for health insurance are only to be assessed, in states that create their own health-care exchange. The IRS, however, is attempting to enforce tax penalties in all states—including Oklahoma and the majority of the other states that have declined to create their own exchanges. Citizens and businesses in these states must use the federal exchange instead.

The distinction is critical, because under the terms of the law it is the availability of government insurance-premium subsidies that triggers the penalties against businesses if they fail to provide their employees with health insurance that the administration deems acceptable. This is a huge problem for the administration, which desperately needs to hand out tax credits and subsidies to the citizenry to quash the swelling backlash against the law.

When Oklahoma first raised this challenge in 2012, many experts predicted that the Sooner State would "go it alone" in pursuing this legal strategy. Not so. In Indiana, the state and 15 school districts have filed a lawsuit against the IRS, the agency that collects the penalties. Business owners (who, like the state of Oklahoma, would be subject to penalties as employers) and individuals in Virginia and the District of Columbia have done the same. In the D.C. lawsuit, the presiding judge recently rejected the Obama administration's attempt to have the case dismissed, as the judge in the Oklahoma case did in August.

Motions for summary judgment will soon be filed in federal district courts, and our court system will determine whether what the administration has called its "improvements" to the ACA—essentially by ignoring some of its provisions—are lawful.

....

There is a huge difference between delaying deadlines (or calling a mandate a tax after swearing it wasn't one) and claiming that a law applies, penalties and all, to the entire nation when the law explicitly states that it applies to a specific subset of the nation.

In order for it to be a tax it must be "uniform" through out the Nation.

 

[Sallow]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously the piece is partisan, and it resonates with my observances.

.... Obama’s apparent appeal to pragmatism disguises his oscillation between extremes. One moment he is ideologically driven to use fealty to the rule of law to overcome the normal (if sometimes morally suspect) give-and-take -- the horse-trading, glad-handing, and compromise -- necessary for the effective practice of politics. Yet the next moment, he is ideologically driven to disdain legal process and the constraints of law.

The worthy alternative to the left-liberal sensibility is not one that is opposed to the universal claims of reason but rather one that involves a more judicious interpretation of reason. It holds, among other things, that it is unreasonable to attempt to make public policy decisions on the basis of abstract theories. It also emphasizes the wisdom of experience, and accords latitude to the exercise of practical judgment in balancing competing interests, opinions, and principles. It holds that government must be limited to secure the rights shared equally by all. And it holds that appreciating the limits of law is crucial to vindicating the majesty of the law.

....

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

The Bush administration - Patriot Act, Torture, Overtime rules "overhaul", Department of Homeland Security, No child left behind, indefinite detention.

Justice Scalia/Cheney - Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, Heller.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously the piece is partisan, and it resonates with my observances.

.... Obama’s apparent appeal to pragmatism disguises his oscillation between extremes. One moment he is ideologically driven to use fealty to the rule of law to overcome the normal (if sometimes morally suspect) give-and-take -- the horse-trading, glad-handing, and compromise -- necessary for the effective practice of politics. Yet the next moment, he is ideologically driven to disdain legal process and the constraints of law.

The worthy alternative to the left-liberal sensibility is not one that is opposed to the universal claims of reason but rather one that involves a more judicious interpretation of reason. It holds, among other things, that it is unreasonable to attempt to make public policy decisions on the basis of abstract theories. It also emphasizes the wisdom of experience, and accords latitude to the exercise of practical judgment in balancing competing interests, opinions, and principles. It holds that government must be limited to secure the rights shared equally by all. And it holds that appreciating the limits of law is crucial to vindicating the majesty of the law.

....

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

The Bush administration - Patriot Act, Torture, Overtime rules "overhaul", Department of Homeland Security, No child left behind, indefinite detention.

Justice Scalia/Cheney - Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, Heller.

Bush vs Gore was a 7-2 decision. Bush was right, the only contention the left had after agreeing to that was whether there was time to do a recount.

Heller affirmed the 2nd and was the right call. As for Citizens, why is it bad when you think it is ok for Unions to do it?

Patriot act was an over reach but one supported whole heartily by the democrats.

There was no torture, nothing was done to prisoners that was not also done to American service men in training. As for indefinite detention, go ahead name a single US citizen so treated?

 

[Listening]

Patriot act was an over reach but one supported whole heartily by the democrats.

Nevertheless, it should have never gone through. From what I recall, it was article 3 that was the big issue. The rest, I believe, O.K.

Bush could be somewhat guilty of the same thing the OP is saying about Obama....only not to such a large degree.

Even Thomas Jefferson found it necessary to sometimes just ignore his own philosophy to achieve what he thought were pragmatic ends. But in his case, it was one-and-done (Louisiana Purchase). In Obamacare, we have a legacy law that will hang around our necks until we can get the stupid things shut down.

 

[Listening]

No so much roughshod, but still against what is principled following of the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Reagan first objected to the idea of a raising the drinking age (MADD was all over this) indicating it was a state responsibility. But somehow, it came down to states either raised it or they lost federal highway dollars.

 

[FA_Q2]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously it is partisan, and it resonates with my observances.

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

To me its less about the law per se, and more about the consitution, where liberals ignore it when it suits them, and run to it when it suits, them. You also see it when they hold more firmly onto court decsions they favor regardless of what the actual consitution says on the matter.

"The ends justifying the means" can be found on both sides, but is far more prevalent among progressive statists.

I would say that you r only mistake is seeming to believe that ‘progressive statists’ are a democrat issue. It is not. There are progressive statists in both parties and they are as prevalent in both. Neither party seems interested in the constitution when it is in the way of a political agenda.

 

[Billo_Really]

Bush vs Gore was a 7-2 decision. Bush was right, the only contention the left had after agreeing to that was whether there was time to do a recount.

It was a 5-4 vote.

In a per curiam decision, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set

With the uber-partisan Scalia casting the deciding vote.

Scalia's decision was criticized by a Harvard Law professor...

The majority opinion was criticized by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, who wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.​

Bush also paid people to go down to Florida and start riots to affect the decision.

Heller affirmed the 2nd and was the right call. As for Citizens, why is it bad when you think it is ok for Unions to do it?

Citizens United was one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history. Our leaders are now bought and all the subsequent elections are now tainted from campaign donations by the highest bidder.

Patriot act was an over reach but one supported whole heartily by the democrats.

Bush pressured for a PA vote 24 hours after the full written version was given to Congress. They voted on it, before they had a chance to read it. That bill, in conjunction with the Military Commission's Act, effectively nullified our Constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights.

There was no torture, nothing was done to prisoners that was not also done to American service men in training.

Cheney admitted on national TV he ordered the water-boarding of detainees. Water-boarding is torture. The Abu Ghraib pictures was torture. The treatment of detainees at GITMO, was torture.

If you don't think waterboarding was illegal, then why did the Reagan DOJ send 4 Texas sheriffs to prison, for doing it to an inmate?

As for indefinite detention, go ahead name a single US citizen so treated?

Jose Padilla was held without charges for over 2 years. He's a US citizen.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bush pressured for a PA vote 24 hours after the full written version was given to Congress. They voted on it, before they had a chance to read it. That bill, in conjunction with the Military Commission's Act, effectively nullified our Constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights.

Irrelevant. That might have held water the FIRST time that the PA was passed but that is no longer the case. Not only was the act extended but it was done so when the democrats ran both branches of the legislative process. It was passed with overwhelming support from democrats and republicans and there is no way that you can claim they didn't know what was in it years after it was instituted.

Face it, what was once a shameful Republican idiocy is now owned by both parties. This is yet another reason that I don't understand partisanship as I don't see the difference in the parties.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously the piece is partisan, and it resonates with my observances.

.... Obama’s apparent appeal to pragmatism disguises his oscillation between extremes. One moment he is ideologically driven to use fealty to the rule of law to overcome the normal (if sometimes morally suspect) give-and-take -- the horse-trading, glad-handing, and compromise -- necessary for the effective practice of politics. Yet the next moment, he is ideologically driven to disdain legal process and the constraints of law.

The worthy alternative to the left-liberal sensibility is not one that is opposed to the universal claims of reason but rather one that involves a more judicious interpretation of reason. It holds, among other things, that it is unreasonable to attempt to make public policy decisions on the basis of abstract theories. It also emphasizes the wisdom of experience, and accords latitude to the exercise of practical judgment in balancing competing interests, opinions, and principles. It holds that government must be limited to secure the rights shared equally by all. And it holds that appreciating the limits of law is crucial to vindicating the majesty of the law.

....

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

The Bush administration - Patriot Act, Torture, Overtime rules "overhaul", Department of Homeland Security, No child left behind, indefinite detention.

Justice Scalia/Cheney - Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, Heller.

That was an outstanding example of partisanship. When asked to find examples of times Republicans ignored the law as written and unilaterally rewrote legislation you pop in with numerous examples of them using the legislative and judicial process to come up with results you disagree with. I should pos rep you for an outstanding example of how not to win a debate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously Peter Berkowitz doesn’t understand what ‘ the rule of law’ means, consequently his premise that ‘liberals’ fail to acknowledge the rule of law fails.

In the United States the rule of law manifests in three fundamental ways:

Due Process (substantive and procedural)

Judicial Review

Recognized Jurisprudence

With regard to the ACA, for example, both the president and democrats followed and obeyed the rule of law. The Act was subject to judicial review. Opponents of the Act were afforded their due process both at the ballot box and in the courts. And now the ACA is recognized and accepted jurisprudence, simply put: Constitutional.

Indeed, it can be well-argued that republicans and others on the right exhibited a disregard and contempt for the rule of law when, after the ACA was subjected to judicial review and found to be Constitutional, after twice conservatives and republicans were afforded the opportunity to seek to repeal the Act in 2010 and 2012, republicans continued their efforts to undermine the rule of law by shutting down the government and threatening to destroy the American economy if the Act hadn’t been delayed or repealed – all, again, exhibiting a blatant disregard for the rule of law on the part of conservatives.

With regard to privacy rights, we continue to see republicans and conservatives exhibit their disregard for the rule of law. Just this past June House republicans enacted a measure making abortion after 20 weeks illegal, when the month prior a Federal court invalidated an Arizona law that sought the same provision. Consequently, House republicans, who should have been aware of the Arizona case and that the Arizona law was un-Constitutional, proceeded nonetheless to enact their own un-Constitutional measure exhibiting a wanton disregard for the rule of law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obviously Peter Berkowitz doesn’t understand what ‘ the rule of law’ means, consequently his premise that ‘liberals’ fail to acknowledge the rule of law fails.

In the United States the rule of law manifests in three fundamental ways:

Due Process (substantive and procedural)

Judicial Review

Recognized Jurisprudence

With regard to the ACA, for example, both the president and democrats followed and obeyed the rule of law. The Act was subject to judicial review. Opponents of the Act were afforded their due process both at the ballot box and in the courts. And now the ACA is recognized and accepted jurisprudence, simply put: Constitutional.

Indeed, it can be well-argued that republicans and others on the right exhibited a disregard and contempt for the rule of law when, after the ACA was subjected to judicial review and found to be Constitutional, after twice conservatives and republicans were afforded the opportunity to seek to repeal the Act in 2010 and 2012, republicans continued their efforts to undermine the rule of law by shutting down the government and threatening to destroy the American economy if the Act hadn’t been delayed or repealed – all, again, exhibiting a blatant disregard for the rule of law on the part of conservatives.

With regard to privacy rights, we continue to see republicans and conservatives exhibit their disregard for the rule of law. Just this past June House republicans enacted a measure making abortion after 20 weeks illegal, when the month prior a Federal court invalidated an Arizona law that sought the same provision. Consequently, House republicans, who should have been aware of the Arizona case and that the Arizona law was un-Constitutional, proceeded nonetheless to enact their own un-Constitutional measure exhibiting a wanton disregard for the rule of law.

Guess who else doesn't know what the rule of law means.

Jonathon Turley.

He recently testified that the way Obama is ignoring laws is effectively returning us to the very thing we fought a revolution against, the royal prerogative to ignore the law.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Pretty highbrow discussion. Don't know if its too profound or too mundane but it sure ain't too profane. Amelia must be having an ameliorating effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously the piece is partisan, and it resonates with my observations.

.... Obama’s apparent appeal to pragmatism disguises his oscillation between extremes. One moment he is ideologically driven to use fealty to the rule of law to overcome the normal (if sometimes morally suspect) give-and-take -- the horse-trading, glad-handing, and compromise -- necessary for the effective practice of politics. Yet the next moment, he is ideologically driven to disdain legal process and the constraints of law.

The worthy alternative to the left-liberal sensibility is not one that is opposed to the universal claims of reason but rather one that involves a more judicious interpretation of reason. It holds, among other things, that it is unreasonable to attempt to make public policy decisions on the basis of abstract theories. It also emphasizes the wisdom of experience, and accords latitude to the exercise of practical judgment in balancing competing interests, opinions, and principles. It holds that government must be limited to secure the rights shared equally by all. And it holds that appreciating the limits of law is crucial to vindicating the majesty of the law.

....

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

Obama, like most liberals, on any goven political issue, apply whatevver line of reasoning that allows them to gain/retain as much partisan political power as possible at that moment.

Thus, the fact that they, the very next day, may argue exactly opposite that they did today does not illustrate inconsistency/hypocrisy on their part, only that their version of "consistent" differs greatly from that of the intellectually honest.

The ends, after all, justify the means.

 

[Listening]

With Regard to the ACA...

Here is a from some website....maybe this should be the starting point....

Do we agree this defines the Rule Of Law ?

What is the Rule of Law?

The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.

The laws are clear, publicized, stable and just, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient.

Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

These four universal principles which comprise the WJP's notion of the rule of law are further developed in the nine factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index.

If this is the case...then the rule of law with regard to the ACA is split. The process whereby it came to being is seen as legitimate.

Obama's waiver's, his fix, and his other goodies all violate some of the definitions above.

 

[Listening]

Peter Berkowitz: Liberals' Love-Hate Relationship With the Law | RealClearPolitics

That essay ends on a somewhat nonpartisan note but obviously the piece is partisan, and it resonates with my observances.

.... Obama’s apparent appeal to pragmatism disguises his oscillation between extremes. One moment he is ideologically driven to use fealty to the rule of law to overcome the normal (if sometimes morally suspect) give-and-take -- the horse-trading, glad-handing, and compromise -- necessary for the effective practice of politics. Yet the next moment, he is ideologically driven to disdain legal process and the constraints of law.

The worthy alternative to the left-liberal sensibility is not one that is opposed to the universal claims of reason but rather one that involves a more judicious interpretation of reason. It holds, among other things, that it is unreasonable to attempt to make public policy decisions on the basis of abstract theories. It also emphasizes the wisdom of experience, and accords latitude to the exercise of practical judgment in balancing competing interests, opinions, and principles. It holds that government must be limited to secure the rights shared equally by all. And it holds that appreciating the limits of law is crucial to vindicating the majesty of the law.

....

What examples do liberals have of high profile Republicans riding roughshod over the law the way the Obama administration and Washington Democrats have done in recent years?

The Bush administration - Patriot Act, Torture, Overtime rules "overhaul", Department of Homeland Security, No child left behind, indefinite detention.

Justice Scalia/Cheney - Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, Heller.

How did the Patriot Act violate the Rule of Law ?

How did No Child Left behind violate the Rule of Law ?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Patriot act was an over reach but one supported whole heartily by the democrats.

There was no torture, nothing was done to prisoners that was not also done to American service men in training. As for indefinite detention, go ahead name a single US citizen so treated?

Former Marine Indefinitely Detained In Psychiatric Ward Over 9/11 Facebook Posts

Posted on August 20, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
Marine Locked In Mental Ward for Questioning 9/11

Former marine Brandon Raub was carted off by the Feds and locked in a psychiatric ward for his Facebook posts questioning the government’s version of 9/11.
Raub isn’t the first person who has suffered this fate. Claire Swinney was also held in a psychiatric ward and called “delusional” for claiming government liability for 9/11. Others have been committed for the same reason over the last decade.





Former Marine Indefinitely Detained In Psychiatric Ward Over 9/11 Facebook Posts Washington's Blog

 

[KokomoJojo]

how did the patriot act violate the rule of law ?

How did no child left behind violate the rule of law ?

due process