Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
I see, from my vantage point as the vice-chair of the Legal Services Corporation, a serious crisis going on in this country. Eighty percent of low-income people have no access to the civil justice system, meaning anything but criminal law.
You think about the Pledge of Allegiance, "liberty and justice for all." This is at the core of the American creed. The creation of the Legal Services Corporation was a recognition that low-income people have trouble being able to afford a lawyer.
I think the problem is, if we foreclose any public justice, then we cut off the virtuous cycle that's represented by law, where there are public decisions which then deter misconduct in the future. We need to have both. We need to have private dispute sy-, systems, and we need to have public dispute systems.
Of course, in the states, about half the states elect their judges, and that's an even more direct involvement with politics. But I think it's not the same as the elections of many other candidates. People who run for the judiciary, I think are pretty careful to indicate that they will adhere to the rule of law.
Deanell Tacha and I decided to write an editorial, because both of us have had experiences in countries where the rule of law is not strong. Uh, where there is civil war. Where there is disorder. And, it, it seemed to us important to underscore that this is a treasure, our rule of law, our judiciary independent from politics, and it's in jeopardy.
I think that we see some cities that have developed living wage ordinances. I think that we see some efforts to actually put real restrictions on unscrupulous behavior by creditors. I think that the Consumer Finance Agency is a reflection of a political reaction to the abuses behind the financial disaster. I hope the system will continue to react.
That's a really sad moment. When people in a democracy are afraid of having the conversation, because it might actually lead to a conclusion they don't like, as opposed to saying, let's have the conversation, and let's learn, and, you know, let's, let me try to persuade you, and if I'm not persuading you, then you try to persuade me. That's what we hope for.
Deal with just the basic fact: we will never have enough money for lawyers for poor people. So one of our major initiatives has been to develop new technologies that can help people without a lawyer navigate the legal system, and help sort the cases that really need to have a lawyer from those where an individual with some help online, may be able to manage by him or herself.
I have to be honest and say members of both political parties have contributed to de-legitimization of the process. Even President Barack Obama when he was a senator, contributed to it, in the sense of voting against a well-qualified individual because he disagreed with the view. Again, that's the prerogative of the senators. They're allowed to express their views on any basis.
The United States Constitution builds politics right into the process of selecting federal judges. This third branch, the judiciary, is designed to have a longer view. To have individuals who are more insulated from politics. They're not elected directly. They're appointed for life. So, politics enters, but it's also, controlled. And if you bypass this process, I'm not sure what we do.
Whether low-income people are dealing with access to veteran's benefits, or a protective order to guard against domestic violence, or a way to guard against the loss of their home due to foreclosure and unscrupulous behavior by mortgage providers, there's no way they can afford a lawyer. And that's a serious problem. Because that erodes respect for law, it erodes the prospects for justice.
In I'm Not A Racist, But..., Lawrence Blum offers answers for our time about what race is, who is a racist, and ways for people to talk about the racialized features of our society without falling into name-calling or defensiveness. With exemplary moral and analytic clarity, Blum offers educators, students, lawyers, judges, leaders, and citizens tools for building a nation of equality, comity, and respect for each person.
In the era of modern technology, people could just vote on their phones for who they want to be judges. We could amend all of the ways in which we select our leaders, with the advent of modern technology. We haven't done so. It's actually served us fairly well. Ours is the longest enduring constitutional, written constitution in the world. At the moment, I think it's strained. It's showing the strains of politics and a frustration.
Obama is not just a powerful speaker, but a thinker engaged with the ideas of his country and his age--this argument by historian James Kloppenberg should therefore fascinate anyone interested in American politics or how ideas shape public life. Tracing the influences of Obama's family, educational, and work experiences on his ideas, Reading Obama locates a unique individual in the crosscurrents of American democracy and continuing fights over American ideals.
One of the paradoxes of liberal societies arises from the commitment to tolerance. A society committed to respecting the viewpoints and customs of diverse people within a pluralistic society inevitably encounters this challenge: will you tolerate those who themselves do not agree to respect the viewpoints or customs of others? Paradoxically, the liberal commitment to tolerance requires, at some point, intolerance for those who would reject that very commitment.
Let's put it in perspective at the United States Supreme Court, which hears maybe 60 cases a year, most of the cases are resolved without much dispute. The 10 or 15 that are controversial we all know about, and we hear about. The federal courts hear just a tiny sliver of the cases that go to court in this country. Most of the cases are in the state courts. And most legal issues never go to court. So, the legal system is actually not in jeopardy. At the same time, access to law is in jeopardy.
I understand the politics of the situation, I think that many Republican members of the senate believe that,get out the vote move. They can indicate that they're strong for their base. But the Constitution's pretty clear. The president Donald Trump has to nominate someone. The senate can choose to disapprove. There's nothing in their Constitution that says the grounds upon which they must vote. But to refuse even to meet with the individual, or to have the process go forward, that's just pure politics.
I think frustration unfortunately, reflects a real breakdown in the political parties themselves, which is fascinating because our constitution did not anticipate political parties. They're not even written in the Constitution, there's no guidelines. When we look at the arcane processes of delegate selection in the primaries and caucuses, it's not in the Constitution. This is all created post Constitution. And yet I think we're in the middle of tensions between and within the political parties. They're not functioning that well.