Comments on: Finding Jupiter Optimus Maximus http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/08/finding_jupiter.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Wayne Butler http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/08/finding_jupiter.html/comment-page-1#comment-57265 Wayne Butler Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:49:49 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/08/finding-jupiter-optimus-maximus.html#comment-57265 Perhaps the reason law books and the Bible have a similar two column page is because the material is sometimes difficult to follow when it is spread out across the page. Unlike a novel. Perhaps the reason law books and the Bible have a similar two column page is because the material is sometimes difficult to follow when it is spread out across the page. Unlike a novel.

]]> By: Patrick S. O'Donnell http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/08/finding_jupiter.html/comment-page-1#comment-57264 Patrick S. O'Donnell Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:07:46 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/08/finding-jupiter-optimus-maximus.html#comment-57264 Of course this goes back in our civilization to at least the Seven Sages, 'a group of wise men who exemplified the characteristics and ideals of the ancient Greek rulers, lawgivers and advisors during the time period of 620-550 BCE.' It is interesting to compare classical China in this regard inasmuch as 'legalism' was in opposition to 'Confucianism,' the latter preferring social norms, etiquette, etc. (li) as the ideal means for achieving both requisite and ideal forms of social cooperation. Although, historically, Chinese regimes propagated parts of the Confucian ethos in conjunction with a rule of law of sorts (see Randall Peerenboom on this). Personally, I have little problem with this aura of 'the sacred' surrounding law for, as I note in a comment to Dan Filler's post today, I think an ethic of transgression has taken hold of our culture, encouraging, if only indirectly (spillover or by-product effect), disrespect for the rule of law, and a corresponding lack of appreciation of our constitutionally circumscribed legal system (those who've attended law school might not be best placed to see this). Circuitously or tangentially related to this, but not helping matters, are recent works by Waldron, Tushnet and Kramer that endeavor to weaken the role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the other branches. It seems conservatives and (putative) liberals alike have joined hands in opposing judicial review, a troubling trend from my admittedly limited vantage point (here I follow Chemerinsky in his debate with Tushnet in Legal Affairs). I find this disturbing insofar as that 'while [there exists] an implicit when not tacit recognition by judges that the bulk of claims for constitutional justice are the prerogative and obligation of popular political institutions' (Lawrence Sager), in effect this means the legislative and executive branches are more structurally liable to abuses of power, while the judiciary, on the other hand, operates within structural and procedural constraints that leave it less prone to such abuses. Of course this goes back in our civilization to at least the Seven Sages, ‘a group of wise men who exemplified the characteristics and ideals of the ancient Greek rulers, lawgivers and advisors during the time period of 620-550 BCE.’

It is interesting to compare classical China in this regard inasmuch as ‘legalism’ was in opposition to ‘Confucianism,’ the latter preferring social norms, etiquette, etc. (li) as the ideal means for achieving both requisite and ideal forms of social cooperation. Although, historically, Chinese regimes propagated parts of the Confucian ethos in conjunction with a rule of law of sorts (see Randall Peerenboom on this).

Personally, I have little problem with this aura of ‘the sacred’ surrounding law for, as I note in a comment to Dan Filler’s post today, I think an ethic of transgression has taken hold of our culture, encouraging, if only indirectly (spillover or by-product effect), disrespect for the rule of law, and a corresponding lack of appreciation of our constitutionally circumscribed legal system (those who’ve attended law school might not be best placed to see this). Circuitously or tangentially related to this, but not helping matters, are recent works by Waldron, Tushnet and Kramer that endeavor to weaken the role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the other branches. It seems conservatives and (putative) liberals alike have joined hands in opposing judicial review, a troubling trend from my admittedly limited vantage point (here I follow Chemerinsky in his debate with Tushnet in Legal Affairs). I find this disturbing insofar as that ‘while [there exists] an implicit when not tacit recognition by judges that the bulk of claims for constitutional justice are the prerogative and obligation of popular political institutions’ (Lawrence Sager), in effect this means the legislative and executive branches are more structurally liable to abuses of power, while the judiciary, on the other hand, operates within structural and procedural constraints that leave it less prone to such abuses.

]]> By: KipEsquire http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/08/finding_jupiter.html/comment-page-1#comment-57263 KipEsquire Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:37:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/08/finding-jupiter-optimus-maximus.html#comment-57263 Wrong post, sorry. Wrong post, sorry.

]]> By: KipEsquire http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/08/finding_jupiter.html/comment-page-1#comment-57262 KipEsquire Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:35:11 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/08/finding-jupiter-optimus-maximus.html#comment-57262 <i>"Rather it seems that more concrete examples or perhaps in this case more robust theoretical explanations and models are needed to make the case."</i> Okay: Wireless telephony follows the pricing equivalent of Net Neutrality. Cable television does not and charges both subscribers and content providers for access. Which has been the better "competitive and innovative" success story over the past twenty or so years? “Rather it seems that more concrete examples or perhaps in this case more robust theoretical explanations and models are needed to make the case.”

Okay: Wireless telephony follows the pricing equivalent of Net Neutrality. Cable television does not and charges both subscribers and content providers for access.

Which has been the better “competitive and innovative” success story over the past twenty or so years?

]]>