Today in Supreme Court History: September 27, 1787

9/27/1787: First Anti-Federalist letter by "Cato" is published.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 564 U.S. 1066 (decided September 27, 2011): cert granted due to Circuit Court split of authority; the Court subsequently held that “compensation to interpreters” recoupable by prevailing party as part of “costs” (28 U.S.C. §1920) did not include expense of translating documents, 566 U.S. 560, 2012 (Mariana Islands resort had won summary judgment against Japanese baseball player who fell through wooden deck; resort wanted to tax the expense of translating Japanese medical records into English, which totaled -- $5517.20?? they went all the way up to the Supreme Court for this? were the attorneys working for minimum wage?) (the reports all say Taniguchi was a baseball player but the accident happened in 2006, and he last played in 2001) (the oral argument, which was recorded, was memorably acted out in Puppy Justice Animated, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNU6Y13gqZQ)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The slip of the tongue at the opening of the argument ("our brief licks ... lists") works best when a dog speaks it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One of many fine touches!

[defaultdotxbe]

" $5517.20?? "

It's not about the money...it's about sending a message

[Sarcastr0]

Lets talk charities!
I tend to give a buncha lump sums around Christmas.
Any recommendations? Here is roughly the buckets I use:

1. Pure human harm mitigation
-this one used to be like Doctors Without Borders. But someone here noted that that has little impact for an individual giver, and the key is to give locally. So these days this goes to my county's free clinics, pro bono legal services, and food pantries.

2. American politics
- Key here is community support based on current politics. Issue-specific and not lobbying though it's all fungible so...For us libby libs I've had good fuzzies from the American Muslim legal defense funds, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Planned Parenthood earmarked for service not lobbying.

3. American culture.
This is a new one for me; started it last year. But I'm pretty into it. Last year I gave to Williamson College of the Trades. This year probably the American College of the Building Arts. Next year I'll have to figure some other cultural thing I wanna highlight.

4. Fee for Service
A podcast I liked, or a YouTube channel, or an author.

[Dilan Esper]

Make sure your charity isn't run by Naomi Campbell.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70zn97q1n8o

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Money is fungible. This is a distinction without a difference.

Planned Parenthood earmarked for service not lobbying

It mostly reminds me of politicians saying food aid to dictators doesn't help the dictators militarily.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I note money is fungible. And I'm not like 100% against money spent for lobbying, I just think the impact is riskier than community services.

But at the very least that note provides some messaging of what the donor universe is like.

Do you have any charities you like?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Give to local charities. Family of Woodstock, in my neck of the woods

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Local volunteer fire department. Local people who are having temporary troubles. I don't trust any organized charities. They all have way too much overhead, and some of the ones with lower overhead have too many well-paid executives. If the local firefighters buy pizza instead of new hoses, that's fine with me; money's fungible. If their response time drops, the donations drop, but they have an excellent reputation.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough.

There are studies that direct cash-money support to individuals is the highest impact intervention out there.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Cato was a strong opponent of Julius Caesar.

He was a model of republicanism. He committed suicide rather than surrendering to Caesar. "Cato" worried about excessive executive power. Cato would likely not have liked Josh Blackman.

The first Cato letter warned that even great men could be wrong & that you should use reason:

"Beware of those who wish to influence your passions, and to make you dupes to their resentments and little interests–personal invectives can never persuade, but they always fix prejudices which candor might have removed–those who deal in them have not your happiness at heart. Attach yourselves to measures, not to men."

Many historians believe "Cato" was George Clinton, later vice president under Jefferson and Madison.

Sometimes, people disdain people who "hide beyond" anonymity online. Anonymity has an honorable tradition. It's originalist! OTOH, I'm not an originalist. Any port in a storm!

[SMP0328]

I'm glad the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in defeating ratification of the Constitution, but I am grateful to them for pointing out that the Necessary and Proper Clause is a gaping out in the Founders argument that the federal government would be one of only enumerated powers. They were right that the clause would be read broadly (see McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)) and that it could easily be used to infringe on individual rights. This led to the Founders grudgingly agreeing to the addition of the Bill of Rights.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even without the necessary and proper clause, it seems a little remarkable to me that people actually argued that the bill of rights wasn’t necessary, to the point where it raises questions about how well they really understood the constitution they were adopting.

[SMP0328]

Even more remarkable is that there were States that ratified the Constitution without raising the issue of a bill of rights. Nobody should be that trusting of a government, even one you help create.

[Dan Schiavetta]

At the Convention, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, the foremost “limited federal government” advocate, opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights. “The State Constitutions,” he pointed out, “are not repealed by this Constitution, and being in force are sufficient.” He didn’t want a Bill of Rights that listed certain rights and by implication limited rights not specifically mentioned. Of course, he was also anti-slavery.

[Noscitur a sociis]

An and that’s the position that’s obviously wrong.

The constitution unambiguously creates federal courts and allows congress to enact federal crimes. Without the bill of rights, why would those courts have to use jury trials, and what would stop them from compelling confessions or imposing cruel and unusual punishments? Congress is given police power over a capital district: why can’t it establish or ban religions there? And so on.

[Michael Resanovic]

Both Hamilton and, iirc, Madison regarded the Necessary and Proper Clause as a redundancy. The N&P clause has little to do with the Bill.

Can you give an example of something that Congress couldn't do without N&P, could do with it, but again couldn't w/the BoR?

[Krayt]

Israel just targeted the leader of Hezbollah. No word if they got him yet.

I wonder if this was the same leader BBC interviewed last year, when Hezbollah announced they were gonna do rocket launches into Israel.

It went something like this:

BBC: Israel has said if you launch rockets, their response would be severe. Are you worried about civilian casualties in Lebanon?

“Hezbollah Leader”: No. That’s the breaks. These deaths are on Israel.

This functionally admitted to the Hamas business model of attacking and hoping for your own civilian deaths, to be used by people in the west to cow down the Israelis.

Ooh. Lebanese officials said some of the buildings were loaded with civilians.

I guess the business model is being wildly successful! It would be ironic if the dead guy, assuming they got him, was the one the BBC interviewed.