Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The Big Gamble Theory

Regarding the idea that SCOTUS nominees can’t “prejudge” a case by telling us what their opinions are, I agree completely.  This makes perfect sense and things can be no other way.  In fact, I really think we need to take this one step further and forbid judges from announcing their decisions even after they've decided.  Heaven knows if a similar case might come up again, and we wouldn't want that prejudged either.  I think that's due to the preferential bias that some people have towards positions that they've already held.  

But even that’s not enough.  It’s a fine policy for nominees and judges who have a good shot at being on the short list.  But what of the rest of us?  Can you honestly say that nobody would ever nominate you to the big court?  I mean, if Harriet Miers could get as close as she did, any one of us could be next.  So what else can we do than to completely forbid anyone from stating their opinion on anything, lest they somehow end up on the big court with their biases already known.  And anyone who has already made their opinions known on anything can never be allowed to serve on the court.  It’s that simple and is clearly as the Founding Fathers intended.

Just imagine if we had some bizarro court system in which we knew what to expect before we went to trial, or if we knew what the judges believed before we gave them their lifetime appointments.  Just crazy.  Our Founding Fathers believed in the Big Gamble theory of justice, in which you just had no idea of what was going to happen, or which law might apply in what case.  And that’s why Marbury v. Madison was so important, as it established the Flipping Coin precedent for determining judicial decisions.  This decision was upheld until the Dreaded Scott case of 1812, which ruled that even that level of precedent went too far towards prejudgment and was ruled unconstitutional (a controversial decision many coin hobbyists dispute to this day).  And that brings us to our current state of affairs, in which no man is allowed to know the outcome of his court case until the end of the world.  Hence the name “Judgment Day”.

So when Roberts, Alito, and others refuse to state their opinions on anything, this isn’t some form of deception used to hide their real beliefs, in order to give their political consenters cover against any unpopular positions the nominee might hold.  No, this is simply them fulfilling our Founding Fathers’ desire for a completely arbitrary judicial system based upon uncertainty and singularities.  And in this context, the idea of prejudging decisions through the use of “precedents” and “knowledge” are clearly antiquated and have no business in the modern courtroom.

So all we need do to have a perfect court system is for people to keep their mouths shut about everything, especially regarding decisions they’ve already made or are likely to make, or whether they even make any decisions at all.  Luckily for me, I'm not included in that, as all of the positions I've given thus far in my life are complete lies and in no way represent my real opinion.  I was just trying to impress you people, and I think it worked.  So that makes me perfectly capable to serve on the high court.  And the higher the better, I always say.  


Doctor Biobrain said...

Is it just me, or does it sound like I've swallowed Stephen Colbert lately? I swear I'm hearing Colbert's voice whenever I'm writing this stuff and suspect that one of us has hacked into the other's mind. I should probably charge him for it.

ciscoblog said...

Gambling Commission under the old regulatory regime, applications have progressed to full hearings while the fortitude of these Online Casinos Extreme
commissions and licenses are all but operational; some of these are thought to be dormant and others under construction. Concern at the spate of applications and imposed a cut-off date of April next year for submissions under the old legislation.