Judiciary

 

Here Come The Judge

Order in this courtroom, order in this courtroom
Judge, your Honorship, Hi sir
Did I hear you say "Order in the Court?"
Yes I said order in the court

But how many judges?

At the time of the drafting of the US Constitution, the life expectancy was about 40 years. The average tenure of a judicial appointment was 16 years. Thus at the time of nomination, any appointment even if it was intended to be for a limited time, was effectively a lifetime appointment. But there is a difference between a lifetime appointment and an infinite appointment. A fixed term, even if it is a very long term, makes it clear that a judicial appointment is NOT an infinite appointment.

The nomination clause in the constitution is for ambassadors and other officials that are expected to serve during the term of the President. But it also covers judicial nominations for the Supreme Court and every federal judgeship, and those by custom, are lifetime appointments. However it is only by custom. It appears to be constitutionally allowable to set a very long term on those appointments so that it is clear that they are not infinite appointments. The sovereign of the US is its People which of course has a lifetime longer than that of any judge. The term of any federal judge should be for a fixed number of years so that we do not get into "Après nous, le déluge" situations where judges accidentally forget that their appointment is NOT forever, and forever is longer than their life.

Any federal judge (with the exception of Justices of Supreme Court, which will be discussed later), who has served longer 16 years would have an expired term. When a previously appointed judge reaches a date of 16 years of service, their appointment should expire. Any new judges should  serve only for a term of 16 years.

A majority can be the will of the larger group, or just a random decision. To be certain that it reflects the will of the United States, which is a normal distribution, it should be expected to also follow the 68/95/99 rule. That is, a decision which has a certainty that 68% of the outcomes fall between the mean and one Standard Deviation; 95% of the outcomes fall between the mean and 2 standard deviations; and 99% of the outcomes (actually 99.97%) of the outcomes fall between the mean and 3 standard deviations.

The standard deviation of a normal distribution is approximately the mean divided by three. On any normal panel, the mean is 50% of the panel size. For an even number panel this mean will be an integer. For an odd number panel this mean will NOT be an integer. The standard deviation is 16.67% of the panel size. The certainty of a decision can be specified as the ratio of the size of the votes on the panel divided by the mean of the panel. For example, a 4-3 decision has a Z-score, the ratio of the decision to the mean of the panel, of 4/3.5, 1.14, is 87% certain, which means that it is more certain than a one judge decision which can only have a 50% certainty..

It is suggested that an appeal process should require a decision that INCREASES certainty. A decision that is no more certain than the original decision does not improve the certainty of the decision. The judicial process should also reflect CERTAINTY, not DOMINANCE. To make this clear, the Supreme Court should have an even number of justices so clearly a split SCOTUS does not, can not, ever reflect dominance. It is suggested that SCOTUS should have at least 10 members.  The reason is two fold.  If the court were to have 8 members it would require the removal of an existing justice, while 10 members could be achieved by adding a new justice.  Additionally, to be certain rather than dominant, decisions should  follow the 69/95/99 rule.  That is 68% of 8 members is 5.48 which would ordinarily be rounded down, become less certain, while 68% of 10 members would be 6.8 , which would round up to 7 and thus increase certainty.

It should  be required that neither the Supreme Court nor any appeals panel should require unanimous decisions. Otherwise, a single member could block the decisions of the group and that power should not be vested in a single individual.

An even number of members on the Supreme Court might sound strange but it is noted that the size of the SCOTUS was 6 members at the founding of the United States, was 10 members during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and recently the size of the court was only 8 living members from the death of Antonin Scalia to the swearing in of Neil Gorsuch, a period of 14 months.  The most important decisions of the United States require a 2/3, almost a One Standard Deviation, 68%, vote. It is suggested that Supreme Court decisions should require at least 68% of its members to be binding.  For a 10 member court, this would be at least 7 members..

An even number of members of the Supreme Court of 10 would require increasing the size of the current bench by one Justice. The 16-year term, if implemented immediately, would give the next president the ability to nominate one plus every member who has served more than 16 years. Instead, it is proposed that the terms of the  Supreme Court Justices be staggered, much like the Senate, and that one member’s term expire in every non-federal election year. Thus the first nomination, if this were enacted now, would not be until 2025 and it would be for the 10^th seat. In 2027, Justice Thomas’ term, who has been on the SCOTUS since 1991, would expire. This would continue until 2043 when Justice Jackson’s term would expire. Each newly nominated Justice would serve only a 16-year term. This would mean that a one term president would ordinarily only get to nominate two SCOTUS members (not including filling unexpired terms). A two-term president would ordinarily get to nominate 4 Justices to the court. Unless a political party controlled the Executive Branch for 14 years, it would not get to also have nominated the 7 members needed for a binding decision ( 50% + one standard deviation). During the transition to 16 year terms,  in 2041 and 2043  the term of two justices rather than one would expire.  Since these years would occur during the term of a single president, it is suggested that the first term of the 10th justice nominated in 2025 should be for 20 years.

It is noted that a unanimous 12 member jury (an even integer!), is only 2 out of 4096 possible jury outcomes. ( An even split jury, a 6 to 6 vote, is 924 out of 4096, or 22.56%). This means that a unanimous jury with a Guilty verdict has a 99.98% (1 of 4096, the other unanimous outcome being a Not Guilty verdict) certainty of being correct, unless the evidence is false or the jury was tainted, which would mean that the Guilty jury verdict was only a false positive. To remedy any false positives, all jury decisions should be reversible. Since the death penalty is NOT reversible, it would not appear to ever be an appropriate judicial decision.

The Scorpion and the Frog

 

Together

Through thick and through thin,
All out or all in.
And whether it's win, place or show.
With you for me and me for you,
We'll muddle through whatever we do.
Together, wherever we go.

The group is stronger than the individual.

"A scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, both would sink, and the scorpion would drown. The frog then agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature."

This is a favorite cautionary story on why you should not trust others.  Those admiring the tale think that they are superior to both the stinging scorpion and the naïve frog.  However the people who admire this tale have a lot more in common with the scorpion than the frog.  The frog assumed that since he would not do anything to kill himself, the scorpion would do the same.  The frog is unlikely to approach the scorpion on land because that would be dangerous.  However the frog assumed that no one would be foolish enough to kill himself. It is told as a lesson to point out how foolish that frog was being.

This is a simple game where the scorpion has a goal to cross the river.  On each move the scorpion can sting or not sting and on that same move the frog can carry or not carry.  If the scorpion stings but the frog does not carry, the scorpion does not cross the river.  If the scorpion does not sting and the frog does not carry, the scorpion also does not cross the river.  If the scorpion stings and the frog carries, then the scorpion does not cross the river.  Only if the frog carries and the scorpion does not sting can the scorpion cross the river.

After the game play in the story, neither the frog nor the scorpion can ever play again. This is then by definition a game of only two.  But if the scorpion is playing for other scorpions and the frog is playing for other frogs, then stinging is NOT the best strategy.  The winning strategy in games with more than two players is the subject of an older blog post of mine.  https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2021/05/tough-but-fair-beats-always-being-nasty.html.  Or to borrow phrase,  the winning strategy is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Don’t ever walk alone.

Regulations II

 

Liar, Liar

Liar, liar, pants on fire
Your nose is longer than a telephone wire
Ask me, baby, why I'm sad
You been out all night, know you been bad
Don't tell me different, know it's a lie
Come kill me, honey, see how I cry

Aren’t regulations just a protection from lying?

A basic principle of User Optimal solutions (such as those favored by Libertarians), is that all Users have perfect knowledge.  In the absence of perfect knowledge, the assumption is that in any transaction, all parties of that transaction can be trusted.  Regulations are imposed because one of the parties in a  transaction may be lying, while the other parties think that party is telling the truth.  Regulations are not because there are untrustworthy parties in a transaction but because there might be untrustworthy parties in a transaction.  Regulations are merely a way of substituting for perfect knowledge.

Any group of users, such as the United States, wishes to achieve a System Optimal solution.  In an ideal world, this System Optimal solution will be the sum of all of the User Optimal solutions.  But this is only possible if they are indeed User Optimal solutions for every party in the transactions.  If one of the parties in a transaction is not trustworthy, that user will achieve THEIR User Optimal solution, but every other party of the transaction will NOT achieve their User Optimal solution.

For example, Bernie Madoff achieved his User Optimal solution, which in his case included lying, while he was operating his investment scheme.  The victims of Bernie Madoff did NOT achieve their User Optimal solutions.  That is why Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi investment scheme was a criminal offense.  This is also why there are regulations.  Those who rail against regulations are saying that they, and all parties in transactions, are trustworthy so why the regulations.  The problem is that not every party in a transactions might be trustworthy, and in order to protect society, society has to enact regulations.  Are regulations costly? YES? Are costs imposed on trustworthy parties? YES.  Should the cost be borne by the parties of those transactions? THAT SEEMS FAIRER THAN IMPOSING THOSE COSTS ON ALL OF SOCIETY INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE NOT NOW, AND WILL NEVER BE, A PARTY TO THOSE TRANSACTIONS.  If the regulations are less costly than the consequences of untrustworthy transactions, they are worth it to society.

Regulations are not imposed arbitrarily.  There are Notices of Proposed Rule Makings, NPRMs,  and comment periods for every potential federal regulation. www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf.  
If there are objections to these regulations, that is the proper time and way to voice those objections.  If the comments were not properly considered, the laws for NPRMs and their comment periods can be revised, but that is not an excuse for no regulations.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be an arbiter of what is good for society, not for potentially untrustworthy users.  No regulations means that everyone can be trusted.  A nice position, but isn’t that being naïve?  Trust, but verify. Aren’t regulations verifying?

Nasty

 

Nasty Girl

Ohh (do you think I'm a nasty girl?)
Ohh (nasty)
Nasty girl (nasty girl)
Do you think I'm a nasty girl?
Ohh
I don't like this groove
Try and give me something I can croon to
Catch my drift?

Is Kaitlin Collins A Nasty Girl?

At the CNN Town Hall in New Hampshire with Donald Trump, where the audience must have been drawn from the parking lot crowd at Mar-a-Lago, the disgraced and disgraceful former President called Kaitlin Collins NASTY.  Should CNN have done that broadcast with that laugh track? NO. Was Kaitlin Collins asked by CNN to go into the Lions’ Den? YES.

Considering that Donald Trump has previously called Nancy Pelosi, Meghan Markel, Kamala Harris, April Ryan and Hillary Clinton nasty, Kaitlin is in good company.  If that is NASTY, then “More please”.

Perfection

 

Will The Circle Be Unbroken

Will the circle be unbroken
By and by Lord, by and by
There's a better home awaiting
In the sky Lord, in the sky

In case it isn’t obvious, the circle is God

The circle has long been a symbol of perfection, eternity, and of God.  It has no beginning and no end.  The Nicene Creed says that God is a trinity, 3, which creates confusion for the belief that there is but one God.  However the Trinity merely says that there are three aspects of that one God. The area of a circle is π*r(adius)² , the  circumference of circle is 2*π*r(adius),so it is common to use π as the symbol of a circle.

The major religions all seem to agree that life is about chaging our state from Unsaved to Saved.  (They of course disagree about how you get saved but they all still seem to say that there are these two states).  If there are two states,  Saved (1) and Unsaved (0), then the mean and median of these states is 0.5.  A normal distribution is the logistics distribution, also know as the sech-squared distribution.  It is has a range variable, s.  If there are two states, 0 and 1, and their median and mean is 0.5, then the range, s,  is 0.5, i.e. 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 and 0.5 - 0.5 =0.  The variance of the normal sech-squared distribution is s²*π²/3. In other words, Choice/Free Will, 0.5, squared multiplied by perfection, π, squared divided by 3.

A coincidence? Remember Einstein's quote that coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.

Shame

 

It’s A Shame

It's a shame (shame) the way you mess around with your man
It's a shame (shame) the way you play with my emotions
It's a shame (shame) the way you mess around with your man
You're like a child at play, on a sunny day
'Cause you play with love, and then you throw it away

Have you no shame?

The exact words uttered by Joseph Welch to questions by Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Army hearings of 1954 were “Have you no sense of decency”. This was of course a rhetorical question directed to the audience of the hearings. Senator McCarthy of course had no sense of decency. A sense of decency, the ability to feel shame, means you value the opinion of the group more than you value your own opinion. Like the Orange Menace, Senator McCarthy cared not one whit about the opinions of the group. He only cared about his own opinions. Al Franken can resign from the Senate over an inappropriate photo. Abe Fortas can resign from the Supreme Court over a controversial $18,000 contribution that he refunded. Now that is shame!

And by the group, I mean the entire Nation, not just the group of supporters who share his opinion. The fact that Senator McCarthy was holding hearings charging lax security at a top-secret army facility was only an attempt to raise fear on the issue. A classic con artist stunt. “We’ve Got Trouble Right here in River City.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI. Henry Hill did not care at all about the pool hall. A digression. Captain Billy’s Whiz Bang magazine mentioned in the lyrics became Whiz Comics which debuted the original Captain Marvel. Shazam! THAT’S your idea of trouble? He only wanted to sell band uniforms. It starts when you’re always afraid.

Math III

 

Born Free

Stay free
Where no walls divide you
You're free as a roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Is division the opposite of being free?

Engineers such as myself may not care about the difference between approaching and being. We primarily care about close enough. But we understand that there is a difference. Division by infinity approaches zero, but it is NOT zero. A mathematician and a physicist would give different answers. The limit of a constant k divided by x, k/x,  as it approaches zero is undefined according to a mathematician, because if k is zero, then k/0 is undefined. If k is equal to zero, a physicist would  say 0/0 is 1 because the formula k/x approaches 1 as x approaches zero from the positive side. However if it were approached beginning from negative infinity, them its limit would be -1. So at 0 there is a discontinuity, but there is also a paradox because the limit is both -1 and 1.  Engineers like me don’t generally deal with negative numbers, and we have no dog in this fight, but work it out guys please. Discontinuities, abrupt changes in the slope of an equation, that we can handle. Paradoxes, contradictory values at the same value, typically indicate that a deeper truth is not yet understood. The fact that this involves division might be significant

As mathematicians and binary machine language computer programmers can tell you, multiplication is easy, division is hard. Multiplication of a by b, where a is the multiplicand and b is the multiplier, is the product ab. To get that product, you add the multiplicand to itself multiplier times. So multiplication and addition are easily linked. Also multiplication does not involve a change of case. If a and b are both integers then their product, ab, will also be an integer.

Division is not linked to subtraction in the same manner. If multiplication is just repeated addition, division is NOT repeated subtraction. Also division involves a change of case. The division of two integers will result in a rational number. It is even worse for roots. The root of an integer or a rational number can be an irrational number. Multiplication, or raising a number to a power, is a series of additions with no change of case. Division, or taking a root, is not a series of subtractions and it involves a change of case. The biblical injunction is “Be Fruitful and Multiply.”  “Divide and conquer” was said by Julius Caesar. I knew that there was a problem understanding that whole Render onto Caesar and God thing, but those who promote dividing us have at least made it clear on which side they are.