American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Cannot think of a name]

Countdown to the implication that people can only possibly learn history from a statue erected decades after the event it's celebrating.

That's what every American high school campus has statues of FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. Gotta have those statues to learn about history.

Getting them in the lockers was a bitch.

[CoraSpia]

Ridiculous, like all of these statue removals.

There used to be a statue of Roger Taney a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in front of the Maryland State House. He wrote the Dred Scott decision. Should that statue have remained there?

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution, with only the jurisprudence that proceeded him and any set precedent to go off. Contrary to public belief, a judge's duty is to make their judgements based on the law, rather than what might be popular to certain parts of society: it should go without saying that they are not beholden to the sensibilities that a future age may see their judgements in the light of. The decision was agreed to by a 7-2 majority of the court, and although I have seen many arguments that attacked it for the terrible status it granted black Americans I am yet to see much of a convincing argument regarding its poor legal reasoning. Thus I think the statue ought to remain.

[San Lumen]

There used to be a statue of Roger Taney a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in front of the Maryland State House. He wrote the Dred Scott decision. Should that statue have remained there?

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution, with only the jurisprudence that proceeded him and any set precedent to go off. Contrary to public belief, a judge's duty is to make their judgements based on the law, rather than what might be popular to certain parts of society: it should go without saying that they are not beholden to the sensibilities that a future age may see their judgements in the light of. The decision was agreed to by a 7-2 majority of the court, and although I have seen many arguments that attacked it for the terrible status it granted black Americans I am yet to see much of a convincing argument regarding its poor legal reasoning. Thus I think the statue ought to remain.

I don't disagree a judge should not beholden to public opinion but you also don't want courts widely out of step with the public either.

Dred Scott was arguably the worst Supreme Court decision ever. A statue of Taney does not belong in front of a state capitol.

[CoraSpia]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution, with only the jurisprudence that proceeded him and any set precedent to go off. Contrary to public belief, a judge's duty is to make their judgements based on the law, rather than what might be popular to certain parts of society: it should go without saying that they are not beholden to the sensibilities that a future age may see their judgements in the light of. The decision was agreed to by a 7-2 majority of the court, and although I have seen many arguments that attacked it for the terrible status it granted black Americans I am yet to see much of a convincing argument regarding its poor legal reasoning. Thus I think the statue ought to remain.

I don't disagree a judge should not beholden to public opinion but you also don't want courts widely out of step with the public either.

Dred Scott was arguably the worst Supreme Court decision ever. A statue of Taney does not belong in front of a state capitol.

It certainly set a terrible precedent, that was rightfully overturned several years later.
Whether a judges decision is 'good' or not however doesn't depend on public opinion, but on whether the legal reasoning used is sound.

[San Lumen]

I don't disagree a judge should not beholden to public opinion but you also don't want courts widely out of step with the public either.

Dred Scott was arguably the worst Supreme Court decision ever. A statue of Taney does not belong in front of a state capitol.

It certainly set a terrible precedent, that was rightfully overturned several years later.
Whether a judges decision is 'good' or not however doesn't depend on public opinion, but on whether the legal reasoning used is sound.

I dont disagree with you what i take issue with is a statue of that person in front of a state capitol.

[CoraSpia]

It certainly set a terrible precedent, that was rightfully overturned several years later.
Whether a judges decision is 'good' or not however doesn't depend on public opinion, but on whether the legal reasoning used is sound.

I dont disagree with you what i take issue with is a statue of that person in front of a state capitol.

Why? He did his job as a judge in upholding the law as written. You don't have a problem with him here, you have a problem with what the law was and you're putting it on him because he was the judge who upheld it. It's shooting the messenger.

[Kilobugya]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution

You don't make statues of people who made horrible decisions for (arguably) good reasons. You make statues to honor people who took the right decisions even when it was hard to. "He just did what he had to do" is not good enough to get a statue.

[CoraSpia]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution

You don't make statues of people who made horrible decisions for (arguably) good reasons. You make statues to honor people who took the right decisions even when it was hard to. "He just did what he had to do" is not good enough to get a statue.

Pretty sure most people who rise to the position of chief justice of the supreme court are memorialised in some way.

[Tarsonis]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution

You don't make statues of people who made horrible decisions for (arguably) good reasons. You make statues to honor people who took the right decisions even when it was hard to. "He just did what he had to do" is not good enough to get a statue.

As the Welsh say, it's easy to be brave behind castle walls... or in this case 200 years after the fact.

[San Lumen]

You don't make statues of people who made horrible decisions for (arguably) good reasons. You make statues to honor people who took the right decisions even when it was hard to. "He just did what he had to do" is not good enough to get a statue.

Pretty sure most people who rise to the position of chief justice of the supreme court are memorialised in some way.

I can't answer that for certain but someone who said blacks are not citizens shouldn't be memorialized in front of a state capitol.

[Kilobugya]

You don't make statues of people who made horrible decisions for (arguably) good reasons. You make statues to honor people who took the right decisions even when it was hard to. "He just did what he had to do" is not good enough to get a statue.

As the Welsh say, it's easy to be brave behind castle walls... or in this case 200 years after the fact.

Well, I don't expect to make statues of me about me being right 200 years after the fact. But we shouldn't give such an honor (a statue in an important place) to people who made such distasteful and disastrous decisions, even if they did it for (arguably) right reasons in the context.

[Picairn]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution

Where in the constitution does it say that black people are not citizens and therefore have no rights?

[CoraSpia]

Pretty sure most people who rise to the position of chief justice of the supreme court are memorialised in some way.

I can't answer that for certain but someone who said blacks are not citizens shouldn't be memorialized in front of a state capitol.

He didn't say that. He said the law says that.
If I was a judge and the law clearly showed that we all needed to wear a helmet on a Tuesday, my judgement affirming that would not be stupid, the law would be stupid. The same if the law states that your firstborn son must be sacrificed to the great goat god. If the judge decides he can rewrite law then he's not doing his job, he's breaking the law. The only time that's not the case is if he's overturning an ancient decision due to new legal reasoning.

You can argue that a judges legal logic was flawed or that the law was bad all day, but arguing that a judge was wrong to follow the law simply suggests you're okay with massively activist courts, which is not the purpose of the SC.

[CoraSpia]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution

Where in the constitution does it say that black people are not citizens and therefore have no rights?

It's one of those things you've got to infer, and that's pretty easy given the 3/5ths clause and the status of the vast majority of black people when it was being written. There is far more evidence to suggest that the founding fathers didn't intend them to be citizens, and after all they were a pretty racist bunch on the whole.

[Ifreann]

Very amused that Lumen is being talked around to agreeing with the Dred Scott decision.

[San Lumen]

I can't answer that for certain but someone who said blacks are not citizens shouldn't be memorialized in front of a state capitol.

He didn't say that. He said the law says that.
If I was a judge and the law clearly showed that we all needed to wear a helmet on a Tuesday, my judgement affirming that would not be stupid, the law would be stupid. The same if the law states that your firstborn son must be sacrificed to the great goat god. If the judge decides he can rewrite law then he's not doing his job, he's breaking the law. The only time that's not the case is if he's overturning an ancient decision due to new legal reasoning.

You can argue that a judges legal logic was flawed or that the law was bad all day, but arguing that a judge was wrong to follow the law simply suggests you're okay with massively activist courts, which is not the purpose of the SC.

why he and not she?

I already said that a judge should not be making decisions based on public opinion but to say people of color are not citizens is beyond ludicrous and that horrible decision was a factor in Lincoln's election and therefore the Civil War.

You could argue Taney helped spark the conflict as the ruling said slavery was effectively legal everywhere.

Such a man should not have monument in front of the legislature.

[CoraSpia]

He didn't say that. He said the law says that.
If I was a judge and the law clearly showed that we all needed to wear a helmet on a Tuesday, my judgement affirming that would not be stupid, the law would be stupid. The same if the law states that your firstborn son must be sacrificed to the great goat god. If the judge decides he can rewrite law then he's not doing his job, he's breaking the law. The only time that's not the case is if he's overturning an ancient decision due to new legal reasoning.

You can argue that a judges legal logic was flawed or that the law was bad all day, but arguing that a judge was wrong to follow the law simply suggests you're okay with massively activist courts, which is not the purpose of the SC.

why he and not she?

I already said that a judge should not be making decisions based on public opinion but to say people of color are not citizens is beyond ludicrous and that horrible decision was a factor in Lincoln's election and therefore the Civil War.

You could argue Taney helped spark the conflict as the ruling said slavery was effectively legal everywhere.

Such a man should not have monument in front of the legislature.

Instead, he could have broken the law and failed to do his job. To say people of color are not citizens is ludicrous now, it was not ludicrous in the 1850s. It was the law, and it was his job to enforce it.

[Tarsonis]

As the Welsh say, it's easy to be brave behind castle walls... or in this case 200 years after the fact.

Well, I don't expect to make statues of me about me being right 200 years after the fact. But we shouldn't give such an honor (a statue in an important place) to people who made such distasteful and disastrous decisions, even if they did it for (arguably) right reasons in the context.

I'm all for peoples deciding to no longer honor people they once did. But your anachronistic standard of "they should have done back then what is right by our standards today. And if they didn't they're cowards" is ridiculous.

[Senkaku]

There used to be a statue of Roger Taney a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in front of the Maryland State House. He wrote the Dred Scott decision. Should that statue have remained there?

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution, with only the jurisprudence that proceeded him and any set precedent to go off. Contrary to public belief, a judge's duty is to make their judgements based on the law, rather than what might be popular to certain parts of society: it should go without saying that they are not beholden to the sensibilities that a future age may see their judgements in the light of. The decision was agreed to by a 7-2 majority of the court, and although I have seen many arguments that attacked it for the terrible status it granted black Americans I am yet to see much of a convincing argument regarding its poor legal reasoning. Thus I think the statue ought to remain.

If you agree it had negative consequences for our society, why do you care if we make a slight update to our public monuments acknowledging that? I’ve done stupid things for reasons that made sense at the time before, I don’t memorialize them in bronze and marble and get mad whenever anyone suggests to me that maybe I should reflect on whether that’s a good look a few years down the line.

[San Lumen]

why he and not she?

I already said that a judge should not be making decisions based on public opinion but to say people of color are not citizens is beyond ludicrous and that horrible decision was a factor in Lincoln's election and therefore the Civil War.

You could argue Taney helped spark the conflict as the ruling said slavery was effectively legal everywhere.

Such a man should not have monument in front of the legislature.

Instead, he could have broken the law and failed to do his job. To say people of color are not citizens is ludicrous now, it was not ludicrous in the 1850s. It was the law, and it was his job to enforce it.

I don't deny it wasn't ludicrous in the 1850's but that decision helped Lincoln win the election in 1860 and thus the Civil War started.

Taney should be remembered but it should not be with a statue in front of the Maryland Capitol.

[CoraSpia]

He was a chief justice of the supreme court who made his decisions based on the constitution, with only the jurisprudence that proceeded him and any set precedent to go off. Contrary to public belief, a judge's duty is to make their judgements based on the law, rather than what might be popular to certain parts of society: it should go without saying that they are not beholden to the sensibilities that a future age may see their judgements in the light of. The decision was agreed to by a 7-2 majority of the court, and although I have seen many arguments that attacked it for the terrible status it granted black Americans I am yet to see much of a convincing argument regarding its poor legal reasoning. Thus I think the statue ought to remain.

If you agree it had negative consequences for our society, why do you care if we make a slight update to our public monuments acknowledging that? I’ve done stupid things for reasons that made sense at the time before, I don’t memorialize them in bronze and marble and get mad whenever anyone suggests to me that maybe I should reflect on whether that’s a good look a few years down the line.

I don't see statues as some invaluable educational tool, but I do see them as symbols of the leaders that went before us. It's absolutely right to have discussions about whether they were good people, but I find it distasteful to sanitise them from their place as equals to the people who did things that we still believe are right.

[Kilobugya]

I'm all for peoples deciding to no longer honor people they once did. But your anachronistic standard of "they should have done back then what is right by our standards today. And if they didn't they're cowards" is ridiculous.

Robespierre abolished slavery and gave citizenship to black people in 1794. And other examples were given not so long ago here. You didn't need to be prescient to know that treating people horrible because of their skin color wasn't right, even 200 years ago.

[Senkaku]

Well, I don't expect to make statues of me about me being right 200 years after the fact. But we shouldn't give such an honor (a statue in an important place) to people who made such distasteful and disastrous decisions, even if they did it for (arguably) right reasons in the context.

I'm all for peoples deciding to no longer honor people they once did. But your anachronistic standard of "they should have done back then what is right by our standards today. And if they didn't they're cowards" is ridiculous.

Why, though? What information about their fellow humans’ dignity did they lack that we’ve since discovered? Why would living a few decades or centuries in the past apparently let people off the hook for terrible crimes?

[CoraSpia]

Instead, he could have broken the law and failed to do his job. To say people of color are not citizens is ludicrous now, it was not ludicrous in the 1850s. It was the law, and it was his job to enforce it.

I don't deny it wasn't ludicrous in the 1850's but that decision helped Lincoln win the election in 1860 and thus the Civil War started.

Taney should be remembered but it should not be with a statue in front of the Maryland Capitol.

The Lincon-Douglas debates also helped him win the election, should they not be memorialised?
Taney wasn't being memorialised for his work in the arena of social justice, he was being memorialised for being a supreme court chief justice.

[Senkaku]

If you agree it had negative consequences for our society, why do you care if we make a slight update to our public monuments acknowledging that? I’ve done stupid things for reasons that made sense at the time before, I don’t memorialize them in bronze and marble and get mad whenever anyone suggests to me that maybe I should reflect on whether that’s a good look a few years down the line.

I don't see statues as some invaluable educational tool, but I do see them as symbols of the leaders that went before us. It's absolutely right to have discussions about whether they were good people, but I find it distasteful to sanitise them from their place as equals to the people who did things that we still believe are right.

You’re the only one sanitizing anything about him by arguing his position in American public monumentality be eternally preserved. Societies are allowed to reflect on whether certain leaders really deserved to be so honored, there’s nothing distasteful about toppling statues of oppressors.