Win win win. Explains complex issue clearly and fairly. Does so with such wit and humor that it was nonstop entertaining to read. Finally, has such high level jokes that audience feels proud it was entertained. Plus a fourth win: introducing two relevant useful acronyms.
Bob's argument ends up being (as such arguments always must): "Sure, we're a bunch of racist assholes and we will base our decisions upon that racist assholery because the law doesn't specifically say that such decisions can't be based on racist assholery and, besides, you can't accuse us of racist assholery even though we're continually saying racist asshole sorts of things because you're just cherry picking among all the stupid and vile things that we say to present the racist asshole things we say and, besides, you can't possibly know what's in the heart of someone who consistently says what any racist asshole would say. So, there!"
A very funny article. As a non-lawyer, it got me thinking about what due process is supposed to accomplish. Presumably, a requirement to follow a procedure isn't supposed to just delay things and make work for people. Sometimes it's supposed to affect outcomes. But how?
For example, what does a requirement to hold a public hearing do? It puts the public on notice that the government is making a decision, and it gives members of the public the chance to influence (not determine) the decision. It presumes there is a decision-maker who is persuadable, given the right arguments, and that there are other people who wish to influence that decision. If the public simply agrees and doesn't show up at the hearing, the procedural requirement is met. They had the opportunity to weigh in but decided not to use it.
Similarly, a procedural requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security consult other agencies presumably gives them opportunities to attempt to influence the Secretary's decision by making arguments, or at least providing relevant information.
A one-line email shows that the State Department had the opportunity to make an argument. They declined.
So, one purpose of a procedural requirement was met. But Alice's argument seems to be that the State department has a duty to attempt to influence Homeland Security's decision, even if they don't want to. But if they don't actually disagree, that seems to be an argument in favor of a sham procedure?
When making a requirement for consultation, perhaps Congress imagined more disagreement or deference to expertise than currently exists in the Trump administration?
The postmodernism is strong in this one, and, worse, it’s pretty compelling. The problem is: the whole purpose and operation of Law is a rejection of postmodernism. Whatever the metaphysical and epistemological instability of Bob and Alice’s arguments, the point of Law is to designate a winner and treat it as binding anyway.
This might turn pragmatism into a compelling foundation for Law, but that would still leave room for transcendental principles and arguments to prove themselves as useful tools. Not sure where this leaves things overall, except that it certainly makes me open to the pragmatic value of using AI in law.
There are two arguments here I really hate: first, that “consultation” doesn’t require a reasoned, fact-based determination because a one-liner is admirably terse, and second, that if a court holds the government to reasonable procedural standards it thwarts the will of the electorate. On that theory, law itself is just so much bloviation and the only thing that counts is the will of the People as embodied in its Leader.
This is well done and on a matter in which I have some direct personal experience. I hope you don't mind if I don't reveal too much in order to protect my privacy. But in general court findings that many DHS Secretary determinations to terminate TPS for nationals of various countries were insufficiently rigorous be rationally-based, had meaningful procedural shortcomings, abused discretion, were arbitrary or capricious or motivated by racial animus are ... well ... let me be frank, mostly totally bogus to a degree that, in my opinion, no genuinely reasonable and fair adjudicator could make such a holding on the actual record and materials admitted into evidence without being results-oriented and committed to that outcome from the get-go. It is extremely demoralizing to literally observe things to have happened which a judge then turns aroud simply declares didn't happen contrary to demonstrable fact.
Win win win. Explains complex issue clearly and fairly. Does so with such wit and humor that it was nonstop entertaining to read. Finally, has such high level jokes that audience feels proud it was entertained. Plus a fourth win: introducing two relevant useful acronyms.
Bob's argument ends up being (as such arguments always must): "Sure, we're a bunch of racist assholes and we will base our decisions upon that racist assholery because the law doesn't specifically say that such decisions can't be based on racist assholery and, besides, you can't accuse us of racist assholery even though we're continually saying racist asshole sorts of things because you're just cherry picking among all the stupid and vile things that we say to present the racist asshole things we say and, besides, you can't possibly know what's in the heart of someone who consistently says what any racist asshole would say. So, there!"
A very funny article. As a non-lawyer, it got me thinking about what due process is supposed to accomplish. Presumably, a requirement to follow a procedure isn't supposed to just delay things and make work for people. Sometimes it's supposed to affect outcomes. But how?
For example, what does a requirement to hold a public hearing do? It puts the public on notice that the government is making a decision, and it gives members of the public the chance to influence (not determine) the decision. It presumes there is a decision-maker who is persuadable, given the right arguments, and that there are other people who wish to influence that decision. If the public simply agrees and doesn't show up at the hearing, the procedural requirement is met. They had the opportunity to weigh in but decided not to use it.
Similarly, a procedural requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security consult other agencies presumably gives them opportunities to attempt to influence the Secretary's decision by making arguments, or at least providing relevant information.
A one-line email shows that the State Department had the opportunity to make an argument. They declined.
So, one purpose of a procedural requirement was met. But Alice's argument seems to be that the State department has a duty to attempt to influence Homeland Security's decision, even if they don't want to. But if they don't actually disagree, that seems to be an argument in favor of a sham procedure?
When making a requirement for consultation, perhaps Congress imagined more disagreement or deference to expertise than currently exists in the Trump administration?
The postmodernism is strong in this one, and, worse, it’s pretty compelling. The problem is: the whole purpose and operation of Law is a rejection of postmodernism. Whatever the metaphysical and epistemological instability of Bob and Alice’s arguments, the point of Law is to designate a winner and treat it as binding anyway.
This might turn pragmatism into a compelling foundation for Law, but that would still leave room for transcendental principles and arguments to prove themselves as useful tools. Not sure where this leaves things overall, except that it certainly makes me open to the pragmatic value of using AI in law.
There are two arguments here I really hate: first, that “consultation” doesn’t require a reasoned, fact-based determination because a one-liner is admirably terse, and second, that if a court holds the government to reasonable procedural standards it thwarts the will of the electorate. On that theory, law itself is just so much bloviation and the only thing that counts is the will of the People as embodied in its Leader.
This is well done and on a matter in which I have some direct personal experience. I hope you don't mind if I don't reveal too much in order to protect my privacy. But in general court findings that many DHS Secretary determinations to terminate TPS for nationals of various countries were insufficiently rigorous be rationally-based, had meaningful procedural shortcomings, abused discretion, were arbitrary or capricious or motivated by racial animus are ... well ... let me be frank, mostly totally bogus to a degree that, in my opinion, no genuinely reasonable and fair adjudicator could make such a holding on the actual record and materials admitted into evidence without being results-oriented and committed to that outcome from the get-go. It is extremely demoralizing to literally observe things to have happened which a judge then turns aroud simply declares didn't happen contrary to demonstrable fact.
> BOB: This is making my head hurt
Not just BOB.