First, a thank you to OSC-Fan. Last Friday Synth broung up a good question in a thread, seeking to find some solutions to the problems of poverty for single parent families.
OSC-Fan's responce was, "In most cases, its their fault."
I got a bit over zealous with my responce to her responce. I got rude and I apologize.
I spent a good part of this weekend trying to figure out why I disliked her answer so much. Then after some meditation, it hit me.
Laying blame is good for only one thing, giving you an excuse to not deal with the problem.
I spent the larger part of this weekend delving into the depths of that statement.
Politics-both conservative and liberal, and even moderate, is full of blame casting. Yet in the end, laying of blame does not solve the problem. It just removes it from our shoulders.
Right now Monsanto and Phizer are arguing over who is going to clean up the toxic mess boiling not 60 miles from my work. Each side is blaming the other. Great. But the spill is still poisoning the land.
The air waves are full of talk show hosts, from Dr. Laura to Rush Limbaugh to Ralph Nader each saying that responsibility must be taken, either by the individuals or the companies involved with all the problems that we face. They are right. It is easy to blame someone else for your poverty, or your defective merchandise, or your illness. You may even be right, that another is responsible for it. That doesn't solve the problem.
Of course, each of these talk show hosts are doing the same thing, laying blame for these problems on people who don't take responsibility.
A quick definition is needed. Casting blame is when you find a cause for a problem, and relegate the responsibility of solving that problem to that cause. "It Timmy's fault the toys are all over the floor. He should clean them up, not me."
Of course, when we discover that the thing we are blaming is not accepting that blame, and refuses to deal with the problem, we jump to the next step. We punish those we blame.
Cigarette's are lethal. I smoke, but I blame the Cigarette companies for making and selling them. I can spend my time fighting the cancer this smoking has caused, or I can sue the Cigarette company.
Or maybe its Gun manufacturers and the fact that my deranged neighbor has a cannon.
Our court systems are over run with people blaming others for problems, and suing to punish them.
Our politics is filled with people demanding punishment for people they blame for problems.
No Child Left Behind is just that. They see one cause of problem school as bad teachers. They come up with a system to grade teachers, so they can find which ones to blame, and punish.
That doesn't help the kids in school today. It doesn't solve the problem of bad schools.
On the flip side, the biggest power the Democratic party has going for it is its ability to blame so many things on President Bush. That blame may not be deserved, and it definately won't solve the problems.
You see, there is one thing I've learned in life. When you kill the scape-goat, all you have done is added a stinking goat corpse to the problems you have to deal with.
This brings up my last worry, the assault that some fringe groups are making on our judicial system. Since the conservative agenda is not sweeping the country the way they hoped, and some more liberal causes are making headway, they have begun blaming the court system.
And they are making plans to punish it.
The last thing we need is having to deal with the corpse of our judicial system just because some groups want to avoid the rules of our society.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: This brings up my last worry, the assault that some fringe groups are making on our judicial system. Since the conservative agenda is not sweeping the country the way they hoped, and some more liberal causes are making headway, they have begun blaming the court system.
I find the discussion on Hatrack of the rights of American Courts very odd. The reason why probably lies in my background: I'm a fifth year law student, and Australian. So our system is common law, as is yours. We tend to follow England a bit more than you do (well, technically, we're still a part of them..) but the legal foundations and traditions that underlie common law are indentical between Australia and America.
So why do I find this odd?
Two things: 1) There is no way that the Australian population would be so incensed over a High Court ruling to the effect of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Why? (And it's not because we're ignorant and apathetic .) Because most people understand the duty of the court to review, and judge legislation. If legislation is illegal it is the duty of the courts to overturn it. In fact, we have a heck of a lot more 'true' judicial activism over here - that is judges *actually* making law, rather than just ruling on laws already passed - and in the cases where it has happened, the population have supported it.
2) We don't even have separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. You do. It is not just a convention, or a normal duty that the Supreme Court checks legislation. It is constitutionally enshrined that State and Federal legislation will be subjected to the checks and balances of the Courts. Your judicial and executive branches are constitutionally separate.
The Courts have not been liberal, or reactionary, or even pro-homosexual, in the judgements they have been handing down. They have simply been doing their constitutional job.
quote:The last thing we need is having to deal with the corpse of our judicial system just because some groups want to avoid the rules of our society.
I wouldn't worry too much, Dan. The system survived Chief Justice Marshall's introduction of native title. The modern common law system has survived for over 300 years.. it will keep going.
[ March 01, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm more upset when we get "judicial activism" in Canada, because if I'm remembering correctly, you guys elect your supreme court judges. We don't.
Our judges are unelected and hold their position for life. The current PM appoints a new judge when one dies or retires. It casts some doubts on the legitimacy of the whole process.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Because most people understand the duty of the court to review, and judge legislation. If legislation is illegal it is the duty of the courts to overturn it.
I think that a lot of the rancor comes from the when the courts declare something unconstitutional, when the constitution never said anything about that.
Like the recent sodomy ruling. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anthing about sexuality, nor about privacy. You have to do a *lot* of inferring to squeeze that out of the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nope, SCOTUS judges are not elected, but appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.
edit: unless you're talking about Australia, in which case I dont know off the top of my head.
[ March 01, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
mr_porterio_head: I am interested - which recent sodomy ruling?
The ones I have encountered have not found legislation to be unconstitutional because sodomy/homosexual sex is a constitutional right, but rather the way the legislation is couched violates enshrined rights to privacy (mostly) and equality (much more rarely).
Lawrence v Texas is an example where the ruling was made on the basis of privacy.
Edit:
quote: nor about privacy
I didn't see that, sorry. I was sure privacy was protected. Too late for me to look it up now (I have a class in 7 hours!) but I will do tomorrow, and get back to you.
[ March 01, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Fugu: Not elected here. Appointed by the Prime Minister (who is elected), and judges serve until they are 75, or they retire.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
How many times do I have to keep quoting this?
This is explicitly a right to privacy. In the Constitution. And it applies to states:
quote:No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Dan,
really liked your post. a lot.
thanks.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I'm a fifth year law student, and Australian
Maybe that's why Australians are much happier with their judiciary. US law education is only three years. Maybe we're just not learning as much.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.) Because most people understand the duty of the court to review, and judge legislation. If legislation is illegal it is the duty of the courts to overturn it. In fact, we have a heck of a lot more 'true' judicial activism over here - that is judges *actually* making law, rather than just ruling on laws already passed - and in the cases where it has happened, the population have supported it.