Comment by hakaaaaak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hakaaaaak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Hmm. Nothing in there about getting involved in potential supreme court cases.

> he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

What about defending the Constitutionality of Congressional laws seems outside the scope of "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" to you?

Also, note that the Attorney General's position was created in 1789 by the first Congress, and was tasked with more or less the responsibilities he has today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

Read the section labeled "argument" here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/02/12-715...

That sounds like a defendent of the record companies, not the executive branch trying to ensure law is faithfully executed. It would be one thing if the supreme court were ignoring laws, but arguing for the denial to review a case is hardly taking care that law is faithfully executed. Our executive branch is suggesting the subversion of due process in this case.

Exactly how is a brief suggesting that a case doesn't merit cert a "violation of due process"? A full hearing of one's case by the Supreme Court is not a procedural right guaranteed to citizens by the constitution. SCOTUS rejects the overwhelming majority of appeals without hearings.

From the argument: "Petitioner’s further contention (Pet. 15-18) that the court of appeals misapplied the Williams standard is not fairly encompassed in the question presented and is, in any event, a case-specific challenge that does not warrant this Court’s review."

In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain.

Edit: to clarify- this is the final statement in the reasoning why due process should not be considered. Read the argument.

If I'm your lawyer, and you win, and the other party seeks an appeal to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what I write for you. Because it's not my job to insert my judgment about whether I think the Supreme Court should hear the case, my job is only to argue in favor of the interpretation that lets you win the quickest.

In the context of Constitutional challenges to Congressional laws, the DOJ has the same job. They will first seek to have review denied because that's the quickest way for Congress to win. If review is granted, the Solicitor General, whose office is part of the DOJ, will have to drag his ass to the Supreme Court and argue strenuously in favor of upholding the Constitutionality of Congress's law.

That's just the way the adversarial legal system works.

Also, your Due Process point is way out of bounds. Due Process does not entail the right to Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court could deny the petition for no other reason than "it sounded boring" and there would be no Due Process violation.

You didn't answer my question.

I did. Their argument was that due process was handled in the preceding two trials and due process should be denied because X and Y, but to the point that a relevant case was misapplied (which should result in appeal), they basically say "umm... that was case specific and yada yada yada we're right".

What exactly do you mean when you say "due process"? can you explain without using the actual words "due process"?

The DOJ is the government's lawyer. Their job isn't to present balanced analysis of both sides of the government, any more than it's your lawyers job to do that. Their job is to argue strenuously for the interpretation most favorable to their client (in this context, Congress). That's their role in the executive's overall duty to faithfully execute the law.

They're not telling SCOTUS what to do. They're filing a brief with the court. That's what they're supposed to do. When I go to traffic court to contest a ticket, I'm not "telling the judge what to do".

Point taken. Edited language to indicate they are only "getting involved"...

It's called an amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court brief"). In this case, you might consider the friend of the court to be famous, but the supreme court has no obligation to give their filing any more weight than any other.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Amicus+brief

Reply on news.ycombinator.com