Justice Breyer Sees Value in Global View of Law

[albrecht]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/politics/justice-breyer-sees-value-in-a-global-view-of-law.html?_r=1
I don't see a problem with learning from examples of how other countries "handle things" but aside from precedence handed down from English Common Law etc (and French to an extent in Louisiana and Spanish for certain arcane real estate issues in some States) our judges and Justices should be looking to OUR laws and precedents when making decisions- not foreign courts, judges, or international bodies. Any new good ideas gain from foreign countries "handling of things" should be implemented via Congress (or when permitted by regulatory agencies etc.)
I'm a little surprised, though I guess not a lot, that a Justice is allowed to get so many perks from people and still hold control/hold investments? (I didn't look deeply but I would've thought any investments should, at minimum be held in a blind trust or something?)
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1202525-breyer-stephen-2013.html

[WOTR]

I will admit that I do not know a ton about the US supreme court... But I had thought that they were the ones who were responsible for setting precedent?  I had thought that one of their jobs was to overturn previous precedents if they feel that it does not apply to current social or legal circumstances (though I may be mistaken.)  I had thought that the only other way to overturn a supreme court decision was by a constitutional amendment?  If that is correct, then is it not important for the court to occasionally ignore past decisions to update things to modern technology and sensibilities to prevent a ton of amendments.

On top of that, I think that politicians are happy to have the court do some of their dirty work.  If they did not like the decision, they could put in amendments- the fact that they choose not to should tell you that they are happy that somebody else is making the decisions that would be unpopular with a certain percentage of the population.

While the justice does hold a large number of investments, most of the "perks" that he received were airfare, meals and transportation to speak or attend conferences...    Most of his investments were in funds or stocks- not really something where is is likely to be able to influence their value greatly or directly through most of his decisions.

[albrecht]

I will admit that I do not know a ton about the US supreme court... But I had thought that they were the ones who were responsible for setting precedent?  I had thought that one of their jobs was to overturn previous precedents if they feel that it does not apply to current social or legal circumstances (though I may be mistaken.)  I had thought that the only other way to overturn a supreme court decision was by a constitutional amendment?  If that is correct, then is it not important for the court to occasionally ignore past decisions to update things to modern technology and sensibilities to prevent a ton of amendments.

On top of that, I think that politicians are happy to have the court do some of their dirty work.  If they did not like the decision, they could put in amendments- the fact that they choose not to should tell you that they are happy that somebody else is making the decisions that would be unpopular with a certain percentage of the population.

While the justice does hold a large number of investments, most of the "perks" that he received were airfare, meals and transportation to speak or attend conferences...    Most of his investments were in funds or stocks- not really something where is is likely to be able to influence their value greatly or directly through most of his decisions.

Sort of, here there is a "mixed" system,  not just between civil, criminal, equity, tax, military, maritime, etc but also statute, common (precedent more important here,) and regulatory law but our Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter (save Constitutional Amendment)- though some, I, would argue that the Court has self-aggrandized, maybe even created, it's jurisdiction and power than originally intended way early on.

I agree that politicians (in both Parties and in general) like to rely on the Court because they are too spineless to stand for something or afraid of losing their position. This is bad thing though because it seems antithetical to some form of a representative republic or a "democracy." Essentially, now, the voice of the people, the States, the Congress, and even (though much less so, Executive agencies and the Presidency) means almost nothing because of the Court's power. There should be more of a real balance-of-powers (both between the usual Executive-Congressional-Judicial but also between Federal-State-Local.)

Courts (of various types) can have a lot of influence on stocks and bonds and investments!

But, in general, I have no problem with gaining new ideas/methods from foreign countries experiments but these should be implemented by Congress and the States. (One of the former benefits of a Federal system was that many things were left up to the individual States and municipalities and people. So, say, North Dakota could "try" a new way to handle some issue. If it worked it could be implemented by California. Or on a national scale if our Representatives had enough to support it. Allows more experimentation and innovation versus a "top down" model of managing everything.)

[WOTR]

I had kind of assumed that with a direct conflict of interest, a judge would recuse himself- so I did a quick search.  It seems that there were cases where there were very definite conflicts of interest (as per http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-justices-held-stakes-in-companies-who-appeared-before-court-2015-07-02 .)

However, it would seem that some may have learned a lesson (in coke and limelight networks casses justices Alito and Stephen G. Breyer took no part according to http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-grants-eight-cases-2/ .)

I suppose that is all well and good if the supreme court is able to get their conflicts of interest under control- I'm now left wondering about the other 10 000 judges.  Do they all avoid hearing cases where they have a financial interest (again, until now, I had assumed that they would- but if supreme court judges did not recuse themselves I have less confidence that others would...)

[albrecht]

I had kind of assumed that with a direct conflict of interest, a judge would recuse himself- so I did a quick search.  It seems that there were cases where there were very definite conflicts of interest (as per http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-justices-held-stakes-in-companies-who-appeared-before-court-2015-07-02 .)

However, it would seem that some may have learned a lesson (in coke and limelight networks casses justices Alito and Stephen G. Breyer took no part according to http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-grants-eight-cases-2/ .)

I suppose that is all well and good if the supreme court is able to get their conflicts of interest under control- I'm now left wondering about the other 10 000 judges.  Do they all avoid hearing cases where they have a financial interest (again, until now, I had assumed that they would- but if supreme court judges did not recuse themselves I have less confidence that others would...)

As with all human systems there will be error and even corruption to some extent. Ideally this, in the legal realm, at least in theory, is limited by motivated counsel (though technically lawyers are as first priority "officers of the court" and service to their client takes second chair if a conflict arises) and an adversarial system, appellate courts, and -depending on area and jurisdiction: direct political election of judges versus appointments/confirmations, lifetime appointments versus having to be re-elected, "stages" in criminal proceedings (grand juries, indictments, etc,) and rules/precedent giving (in theory) more weight to the defense/individual than the State (in criminal cases) etc. All of these protections and designs though aren't perfect and especially with more and more "national" money coming into even local elections and more "nationalization" of what used to be local criminal issues and "national security" issues, it likely gets worse. On the civil side there are attempts, in some places, to hinder problems with things like tort reform, loser pays, "no fault" accident/divorce, forced mediation for some things, etc although, it is frequently argued that these movements also benefit the corporations/state over individuals.

ps: although it could be true, and likely is sometimes, there are honest judges who could hold Court over something in which they have a conflict of interest, personal interest, financial interest, professional interest, etc but most places have laws against this. Though not in all circumstances and it depends on the jurisdiction/place and type of issue. The theory being, I guess, that appellate courts etc would "solve" anything totally untoward but I doubt this. There also is a politically-correct quandary that can come into play, maybe there is no financial etc interest but the case is politically/racially etc "hot"- a black judge overseeing some Skinhead trial, a Jew overseeing a Neo-Nazi, or a white judge over-seeing a "gentle giant's" trial, women over rape, a political appointee who is ruling on an action by the person that appointed him, and so on....similar debates over juries, grand-juries, places trials are held, voir dire, etc. Again the "system" says this will be curtailed by publicity, appellate courts, aggressive defense and motions by attorneys, "diversity" in juries (where applicable,) and what-not. But, always? Nah. (And, interestingly, the arguments for "conflict" could be end up being counter-intuative: that is, the "black" judge might bent over-backwards to ensure the fair trial of the KKK guy because HE doesn't want to "look bad" on appeal or to voters, or a woman might be "harsher" in sentencing a female criminal, or the white judge might move venue of a "youth" or "bad cop" etc lest he be seen as "racist." So it can be complicated, and this could also help "balance" or correct conflicts in of itself in a way.)