Brett Stuff
Judging the Judges
Term Year: 2019

Supreme Court
2019 Term Year

I decided to read the rest of them... if ever so quickly. So maybe, read is the wrong word. Glance over might be far more accurate.

Continuing On

Please see the previous page (2019_01) for a more complete explanation as to what's going on here. Suffice to say, I am having fun. And if you have a more serious agenda, you probably will be best served by going elsewhere.

This Is Not A Legal Analysis.

It's more like a Crossword Puzzle (or worse yet, one of those Find The Hidden Word Puzzles), in which legal terms (or more accurately Supreme Court Slips) happen to be the starting point of reference.

Or in other words, rather than making my Paper Aeroplanes out of Notebook Paper, I like using pages torn from Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and (as regards the case at hand) Supreme Court Slips. But that doesn't make the result anything more than a Paper Aeroplane.

It's just me having fun.

The AI's know what I mean.

2019 Term Year Commentary

It turns out, I want to know The Law of The Land. I've got a hunch that way back at the beginning it was based on a thing called Honour.

I would give The Judiciary final say over all matters of law. But it doesn't look like that's always the case.

I would separate the Government into three separate Power Groupings: Making The Law (Legislature), Interpreting The Law (Judiciary), Enforcing The Law (Executive). However, I believe it is possible (under The Constitution) to Make a Law that the Judiciary is barred from Interpreting, which seems counter to the Separations of Powers... you know, to me.

The Bureaucracy will be it's own undoing. It's not clever enough to stay alive forever. Oh, it can probably remain sufficiently powerful to avoid a full blown implosion. But eventually, some outside force unencumbered by stupidity will cause it to come tumbling down.

I am a believer of Social Evolution. That much like Animal Species, Human Institutions must compete to survive... and some behaviours are more conducive to survival than others.

There are always unintended consequences. But if the relevant parties are made to pay, harmful side-effects will be reduced.

Or in other words, it cuts both ways.

Just like a knife. Make mine a Ginsu!

Good fences make good neighbors... by helping to keep bad neighbors at bay and responsible for their own messes.

Must I comment on every comment? I guess I must.

More on point, this is one of my favourite mental constructs. And if I actually thought The Law made for a good fence, I'd be much more supportive of it.

If a State's Supreme Court says that a law is null and void, I can't see what right the Federal Supreme Court has in reviving it.

Any reason to reject a Trademark is good enough for me.

Being both against Intelligence and Property, I am against Intellectual Property (the combination of the two). I kid. Really what I am against is the Abusive Claim to Property (for example, The Moon, The North Pole, or any product of Society), which is what I feel Intellectual Property is. Or do you feel you could survive without the rest of us? Or more accurately, do you feel you could survive against the rest of us?

I am not a fan of Representational Governments. I prefer a Democracy. Government by Representation is nothing more than a Bureaucratic Bastardization of Democracy. Of course, when push comes to shove, I'm a bit of an Anarchist. So maybe what I'm saying is there are problems inherent in every solution.

Want to know about Freedom of Speech? This decision might be an interesting place to start.



Just saying...

Religious Based Exemptions are equivalent to disparate treatment based on Religion and run counter to a Separation of Church and State.

True Equality requires The Law to be blind to the extraneous details of gender, sex, religion, and so on.

Being religious is not supposed to allow one to be a worse actor than everyone else... or then again, maybe it is.

For The Law to have meaning in a Democracy, it must be Applied Universally and without bias.

All The Time.
Without Exception.

Mercy Once?
Then Mercy Forever For Everyone!

It's easy to kick a man when he is down. But is that the appropriate thing to do?

I would not create an Indian Reservation where one had not existed mere moments before.


At this remove, I could not begin to tell you what this case (or in fact, many of the cases on this page) was about.

It doesn't matter. I've stopped being rigorous in my approach to (interpreting) The Law.

The Dead will Die.

In other words, no Life Everlasting for you.

Judging the Judges

Next Entry


And now, should I ever desire, I can graph some data points and/or determine my relative agreement with The Court.

© copyright 2020 Brett Paufler
A Personal Opinion/Editorial