THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

My mother served on a jury for a case in which a store clerk returned the incorrect change to a blind person.  Put me down in the camp of thinking that this one’s a good idea.

I mean that people who enact rules for society are usually ill-equipped to do so.  The guys who created the currency are not blind.  The guys who build cars don’t worry about putting purses somewhere or how a seat belt affects a woman’s breast.  The guys who’ve never been in a battle are the first ones to call for war.  And guys have no idea what it is to have a life growing inside them.

Blind people have the vote. They aren’t disenfranchised and therefore there is no need for a court ruling. Let the political process of democracy sort it out.

The political process of democracy?  Wow!  So unless the majority (in anything) happen to feel particularly generous, the minority gets the shaft?  That is not the way it works in this country, at least as long as we have a Constitution.

Robe-clad legislator?  Activist Judges (I hate that term)?

Jurists must determine whether “laws” (I put that in scare-quotes because it is not always a law, per se, such as in this case, that a judge must rendre a decision on - it could be “policy” or something else like that) are constitutional or not.  You will not always agree with them because there are no black and white rules regarding an interpretation of the Constitution.  You will also not always agree whether or not there is a Constitutional issue at stake.  As well, it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate one’s own personal values from one’s interpretation of the Constitution - even for the best judges and justices in America.

You (the ones who complain about “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench") would not want to live in a country (I assume) without a Constitution like the one we have.  The ONLY branch of government charged with making sure that the Constitution is obeyed, in case you did not learn it is civics class, is the juduciary.

One of the beauty of our system and of our Constitution itself is that we have these checks and balances.  What you call “legislating from the bench” is simply one branch making sure that the other does not breach its authority (by encacting unconstitutional laws AND not remeding unconstitutional “situations” AND making sure that the executive branch (including law enforcement) enforces Constitutional laws( I assume that is the issue in this case).

Do some judges make bad decisions?  Duh!  Do some judges go outside and beyond the bounds of their authority?  Duh!  So effing what?  That is life.  The “democratic process” allows us to vote out the judges we don’t like or we think are not doing their job or vote out the people who appoint them.

My point is that in this case you are facing a tradeoff. The cost of making a new currency, which is borne by the whole country, versus the cost of the blind not being able to differentiate between the bills. There is no Constitutional requirement to force the majority to pay for the minority here. The legislative process does work because blind people feel more intensely about this issue than the sighted. I see no reason why we are obligated by the Constitution to choose the tradeoff of printing new money which is why it is a matter for Congress to decide.

The judge said that the Treasury Dept is violating the Rehabilitation Act passed by Congress.

Lawmakers don’t itemize the thousands of possible issues that the Act would handle.  That’s why we have judges to interpret Congress.  Judge Roberts at his confirmation hearings said that Congress can help matters if they were more clear in their laws and intents.

In any case, if it takes 299 million people to subsidize 1 million people, according to laws passed by Congress, then that’s what will happen.

This is *not* a cost/benefit analysis.  Treasury has to pay because Congress, via the judge’s ruling, says it must pay.

The interpretation is in the law and not in the cost/benefit.

Tango is 100% correct and as far as I know he has no law background.

Much (maybe most) of the political arguments in this country are because one side or the other (or both) does not understand the complexities (and sometimes the simplicity) of the law, especially the Constitution.

Congress (all lawmakers, including local ones) indeed must make cost/benefit analyses.  The courts generally do not do that, although sometimes they must or choose to in their rulings.  Courts simply decide according to the relevant precedents (only the Supreme Courts MAKE precedent although even they try and stick to existing law as much as possible for various reasons) what things are lawful or not.  As a result of that process, they somtimes make laws (common law).  Sometimes they make mistakes because they are human beings with their own values and biases.  The “democratic process” is that usually majority rules when judges make laws (techincally only Supreme Courts can “make” laws, and all of them have more than one person on them with equal votes) AND we can either vote them in or out (in the case of some state justices) or vote in or out the people who appoint and confirm them.  The “democratic process” is also that we, the people, can change constitutions in several ways.  This is done all the time (too much and too easily IMO) at the state level.

In this case, as Tango points out, the court decided that having only one kind of money, to the detriment of blind people, is unlawful, based upon a certain law that CONGRESS HAS ALREADY PASSED.  Whether this court is “right” or not is another issue and things like that are almost always matters of interpretation. 

And for those of you who crticize judges for being “robe-clad legislators,” there are two kinds of recognized law in this country and one is as legitimate as the other.  One is legisation by a legislatibve body, federal or otherwise, and the other is common law, which is judge-made law.  Where this idea came from that judges are not supposed to make law, I have no idea.  I think it comes from people who don’t like particular rulings (nothing wrong with that -it is unavoidable, especially on controversial issues) and don’t understand our legal system.

Sorry for the “civics lesson” but most of the time when I get into arguments with “conservatives,” they seem to have little knowledge and understanding of how the legal system works in this country, or they want to have their cake and eat it too (Yeah, I love the first Amendment and everything, but surely we can’t allow people to expose our children to pornography).

By the way-- for those those of you unaware, the United States of America is by no means a democracy, and thankfully so. If we were living in a “true democracy” the majority would be able to completely rule over the minority without a second thought as to fairness or equality. We wouldn’t change our currency for the blind, but we also wouldn’t allow equal access for the handicapped and many schools in the south would still be segregated. Is this the kind of America you would want to live in? The founding fathers knew that the will of the majority needed to be checked so that groups not in line with the views and lifestyles of the majority would still be able to enjoy the basic rights we so value as Americans. This is why the house of representatives was originally the only part of our government that was directly elected and why judges are allowed to make laws like this. I suggest anyone interested should read Ferderalist No. 10 by James Madison, as it outlines the need for protection of minority factions brilliantly. 
Yes, such a change would cost some, but that’s the country we live in. Free Government is not inherently effecient. If you want the most cost effective easy to manage government, fascism is likely your best solution, but thats not how we roll.

One of the most misunderstood concepts is that of “free speech.”

It simply means a prohibition of the “government” enacting any policies or laws that inhibit or deny ANY expression of ideas (speech, writing, pictures, art, etc.).  There is a limit of course and the limit is not a bright line, but includes things like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, “directly” inciting a riot or other criminal behavior (the “Brandenberg rule,” IIRC from law school), “obcene” material (deciding what is obscene is a quagmire of course), or in some cases (like child porn), a depiction of criminal behavior.

Free speech has NOTHING to do with anything private (not “government related").  It is strictly a legal/constitutional concept involving government regulation of speech (and other expressions of ideas), pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and similar parts of State constitutions.  It has nothing to do with things like Michael Richards’ tirade at a private comedy club.  In fact, if the owners of the club enacted a rule that no comedian can say the “N” word, that would be perfectly lawful of course.