LawTalkers
Page 9 of 77 « First 78 9 10111959 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=885)

Hank Chinaski 01-11-2022 05:47 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 532153)
I think he thinks it is unwoke to say that Omicron is mild for the vaxxed because then the kids won’t take any precautions and they will go to raves where Covid particles are blown out of smoke machines, and do hits of Covid through shared bongs. But the fact remains that it appears to mainly be mild for the vaxxed. (I’ve heard that a bong hit of Covid produces a nice energetic body high, kind of like a good Sativa but with the added benefit that it makes you less able to smell your fellow rave-goers.)
Coltrane isn’t woke. Don’t you remember he said that police shouldn’t be prosecuted even if they intentionally kill poor people of color, because police are too important? That doesn’t seem very woke to me.

But wait, I think he also said If a kid is shooting up a school we shouldn’t send armed police. He thought we should send an unarmed social worker, I mean at least when the shooter is a white kid. That sounds sort of woke, doesn’t it?

Do you got a tie- breaker?

Adder 01-12-2022 11:32 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Kid got her first exposure notice from her preschool and her second jab on the same day yesterday. Negative rapid antigen test, but feels crappy day after the shot. Hopefully its just that, but preschool is closed for a week.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 01-12-2022 07:49 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 532153)
I think he thinks it is unwoke to say that Omicron is mild for the vaxxed because then the kids won’t take any precautions and they will go to raves where Covid particles are blown out of smoke machines, and do hits of Covid through shared bongs. But the fact remains that it appears to mainly be mild for the vaxxed. (I’ve heard that a bong hit of Covid produces a nice energetic body high, kind of like a good Sativa but with the added benefit that it makes you less able to smell your fellow rave-goers.)
This is, word for word, exactly right.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 01-13-2022 01:11 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532154)
Coltrane isn’t woke. Don’t you remember he said that police shouldn’t be prosecuted even if they intentionally kill poor people of color, because police are too important? That doesn’t seem very woke to me.

But wait, I think he also said If a kid is shooting up a school we shouldn’t send armed police. He thought we should send an unarmed social worker, I mean at least when the shooter is a white kid. That sounds sort of woke, doesn’t it?

Do you got a tie- breaker?
The social worker should have arms. I am pro limbs.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-13-2022 04:23 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 532157)
The social worker should have arms. I am pro limbs.
Is it OK if the social is wearing short sleeves? How do you feel about baring arms?

Pretty Little Flower 01-13-2022 04:32 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532158)
Is it OK if the social is wearing short sleeves? How do you feel about baring arms?
New Board Motto: “Mostly Dad Jokes”

Tyrone Slothrop 01-14-2022 01:02 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Can't believe Twitter doesn't charge for this.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI6S4klX...jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI6S8gvW...jpg&name=large

LessinSF 01-16-2022 01:42 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 532153)
I think he thinks it is unwoke to say that Omicron is mild for the vaxxed because then the kids won’t take any precautions and they will go to raves where Covid particles are blown out of smoke machines, and do hits of Covid through shared bongs. But the fact remains that it appears to mainly be mild for the vaxxed. (I’ve heard that a bong hit of Covid produces a nice energetic body high, kind of like a good Sativa but with the added benefit that it makes you less able to smell your fellow rave-goers.)
Did y'all see how super-woke Justice Sotomayor was, making up 95,000 children with COVID, so many on ventilators, and shit?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-16-2022 02:34 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 532161)
Did y'all see how super-woke Justice Sotomayor was, making up 95,000 children with COVID, so many on ventilators, and shit?
Both she and Gorsuch missed key facts.

The problem is endemic with lawyers as a whole, we are accustomed to getting our argument based on our client's interest and making the facts conform, which is exactly the wrong way to do this. Facts matter.

I think we ought to get some non-lawyers on the court, people who know how to reason instead of argue. If he weren't so old, I'd suggest Fauci.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-16-2022 04:25 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532162)
Both she and Gorsuch missed key facts.

The problem is endemic with lawyers as a whole, we are accustomed to getting our argument based on our client's interest and making the facts conform, which is exactly the wrong way to do this. Facts matter.

I think we ought to get some non-lawyers on the court, people who know how to reason instead of argue. If he weren't so old, I'd suggest Fauci.
People can disagree, I suppose, about the wisdom of the regulation in question, but it really isn't what the the Supreme Court should be deciding. As an exercise in statutory construction, it would have been an easy case except that that the conservative movement has made vaccines a hot-button issue. Conservatives who had no problems with vaccination requirements a few years ago have discovered lately that staking out the opposite position is a matter of vital principle. And so the conservatives on the Court were motivated, or obliged, or both, to construct a completely ridiculous construction of a decades-old statute. Everyone on the Court knows how to reason. That's not the problem.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-16-2022 05:43 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532163)
People can disagree, I suppose, about the wisdom of the regulation in question, but it really isn't what the the Supreme Court should be deciding. As an exercise in statutory construction, it would have been an easy case except that that the conservative movement has made vaccines a hot-button issue. Conservatives who had no problems with vaccination requirements a few years ago have discovered lately that staking out the opposite position is a matter of vital principle. And so the conservatives on the Court were motivated, or obliged, or both, to construct a completely ridiculous construction of a decades-old statute. Everyone on the Court knows how to reason. That's not the problem.
But there is a separate problem with justices being fast and lose with the facts. We don't get to rip apart Thomas for his lack of even a passing acquaintance with facts in one case and then let liberal judges get a pass.

Facts matter. Rigorous analysis without facts is theology.

Hank Chinaski 01-16-2022 09:19 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532163)
People can disagree, I suppose, about the wisdom of the regulation in question, but it really isn't what the the Supreme Court should be deciding. As an exercise in statutory construction, it would have been an easy case except that that the conservative movement has made vaccines a hot-button issue. Conservatives who had no problems with vaccination requirements a few years ago have discovered lately that staking out the opposite position is a matter of vital principle. And so the conservatives on the Court were motivated, or obliged, or both, to construct a completely ridiculous construction of a decades-old statute. Everyone on the Court knows how to reason. That's not the problem.
I only understand English, that is standard English, so I am not sure I understand your point. In a World where the Country is very much divided you feel it is okay for a Supreme Court Justice to make shit up, because, some prior unmentioned prior decision?

PS Sotomayer is the dumbest on the Court, and that is saying something.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-16-2022 11:58 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532164)
But there is a separate problem with justices being fast and lose with the facts. We don't get to rip apart Thomas for his lack of even a passing acquaintance with facts in one case and then let liberal judges get a pass.

Facts matter. Rigorous analysis without facts is theology.
OK. It does seem to be theology.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 12:03 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532165)
I only understand English, that is standard English, so I am not sure I understand your point. In a World where the Country is very much divided you feel it is okay for a Supreme Court Justice to make shit up, because, some prior unmentioned prior decision?
No, of course not. I just think that if we're all going to talk about a decision where the conservatives on the Court threw statutory interpretation out the window in order to vindicate a conservative belief that didn't exist five years ago, in interpreting a statute that has been around for many, many decades, getting those facts wrong is not the biggest issue to talk about.

Quote:
PS Sotomayer is the dumbest on the Court, and that is saying something.
Hard to imagine someone passing judgment on a white man like that.

I don't personally believe anyone on the Court is dumb at all. There is a big problem with the Court, and it's not a lack of book smarts.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-17-2022 12:53 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532165)
PS Sotomayer is the dumbest on the Court, and that is saying something.
She is both a great writer and a pretty complex thinker.

Lots of lawyers are fast and loose with the facts.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-17-2022 12:56 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532167)
No, of course not. I just think that if we're all going to talk about a decision where the conservatives on the Court threw statutory interpretation out the window in order to vindicate a conservative belief that didn't exist five years ago, in interpreting a statute that has been around for many, many decades, getting those facts wrong is not the biggest issue to talk about.
There are two issues that both are serious and systemic in the court.

One is that the conservative side is pretty much completely without shame. It's pure outcome oriented jurisprudence.

Another is that just about all the justices are really bad at facts and generally pretty mediocre at understanding history, science, economics, or anything else other than law, and these flaws cross the ideological divide and result in bad decisions on both sides. Sotomoyer's misstatement of facts was no better or no worse than Gorsuch's in that, and the fact that both of them screwed up so badly on facts they'd been heavily briefed on shows how endemic the problem is.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-17-2022 12:57 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532166)
OK. It does seem to be theology.
Praise the Lord, you've seen the light!

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 02:40 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532169)
There are two issues that both are serious and systemic in the court.

One is that the conservative side is pretty much completely without shame. It's pure outcome oriented jurisprudence.
FWIW, I think this is only true for the cases with a political valence, but since that is every case that most people notice, that's a big problem.

Quote:
Another is that just about all the justices are really bad at facts and generally pretty mediocre at understanding history, science, economics, or anything else other than law, and these flaws cross the ideological divide and result in bad decisions on both sides. Sotomoyer's misstatement of facts was no better or no worse than Gorsuch's in that, and the fact that both of them screwed up so badly on facts they'd been heavily briefed on shows how endemic the problem is.
This is only a serious or systematic problem if cases are being decided on those grounds, which they shouldn't be. It's a marker of what the Court cares about because neither Sotomayor nor Gorsuch is writing those opinions alone -- they have highly capable law students working for them who are entirely capable of fact-checking things, if their justices want them to do it.

But as a question of statutory interpretation, it doesn't matter whether the number of child fatalities (or whatever it was) is 10K, 100K or a million -- it shouldn't change the answer to the question of what the statute says.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-17-2022 04:54 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532171)
This is only a serious or systematic problem if cases are being decided on those grounds, which they shouldn't be. It's a marker of what the Court cares about because neither Sotomayor nor Gorsuch is writing those opinions alone -- they have highly capable law students working for them who are entirely capable of fact-checking things, if their justices want them to do it.

But as a question of statutory interpretation, it doesn't matter whether the number of child fatalities (or whatever it was) is 10K, 100K or a million -- it shouldn't change the answer to the question of what the statute says.
There is no end to discussion of historical context in statutory interpretation, whether because of some "originalist" approach to understanding the constitution or a desire to understand what was meant when a statute was adopted and language of the statute was written. Half the court and many of their clerks were history majors, but they all really suck at this part of the job. I think it's because of how we train lawyers. Lawyers think of the historical record as a tool for making the arguments that benefit their clients, which is exactly the way you don't want to approach a real understanding of history.

These discussions regularly have an impact on how a court reads a statute.

Hank Chinaski 01-17-2022 05:25 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532167)


Hard to imagine someone passing judgment on a white man like that.

I don't personally believe anyone on the Court is dumb at all. There is a big problem with the Court, and it's not a lack of book smarts.
when was the last time your firm had a case at the Court, so that you knew the case being heard inside and out? For me it was about a year ago.


All you people posting based upon blogs you read should listen to your betters. And GGG she is not “a lawyer,” she a fucking Supreme Court Justice hearing a case that impacts every big company in this country, so “playing loose with the facts” is reprehensible, and daffy.

Hank Chinaski 01-17-2022 05:29 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532171)

But as a question of statutory interpretation, it doesn't matter whether the number of child fatalities (or whatever it was) is 10K, 100K or a million -- it shouldn't change the answer to the question of what the statute says.
Exactly, and what do you think of a Judge who would bring those “facts” up?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 06:52 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532172)
There is no end to discussion of historical context in statutory interpretation, whether because of some "originalist" approach to understanding the constitution or a desire to understand what was meant when a statute was adopted and language of the statute was written. Half the court and many of their clerks were history majors, but they all really suck at this part of the job. I think it's because of how we train lawyers. Lawyers think of the historical record as a tool for making the arguments that benefit their clients, which is exactly the way you don't want to approach a real understanding of history.

These discussions regularly have an impact on how a court reads a statute.
Is there an example of a Supreme Court decision where the majority and minority differed on a straight historical question? I don't recall ever having seen one. They would take the history more seriously if it actually mattered.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 06:55 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532173)
when was the last time your firm had a case at the Court, so that you knew the case being heard inside and out? For me it was about a year ago.
I don't work at a law firm, Sparky, but I am a member of the Supreme Court bar and prevailed 5-4 in the last case where I was counsel of record.

If you disagree with anything I'm saying about the Court, say so.

Quote:
All you people posting based upon blogs you read should listen to your betters. And GGG she is not “a lawyer,” she a fucking Supreme Court Justice hearing a case that impacts every big company in this country, so “playing loose with the facts” is reprehensible, and daffy.
Do you think anything turned on those facts? If she had misspelled the lawyers' names, that would be embarrassing too, but it would have been equally inconsequential for the merits.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 06:57 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532174)
Exactly, and what do you think of a Judge who would bring those “facts” up?
When a justice trots out facts to explain just how bad the majority's decision is, I think it means they are dissenting.

Hank Chinaski 01-17-2022 06:58 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532177)
When a justice trots out facts to explain just how bad the majority's decision is, I think it means they are dissenting.
But you said it doesn’t matter so how does it show anything?

Hank Chinaski 01-17-2022 07:00 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532176)
I don't work at a law firm, Sparky, but I am a member of the Supreme Court bar and prevailed 5-4 in the last case where I was counsel of record.

If you disagree with anything I'm saying about the Court, say so.
cite please?



Quote:
Do you think anything turned on those facts? If she had misspelled the lawyers' names, that would be embarrassing too, but it would have been equally inconsequential for the merits.
it seems her vote turned on it?

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 07:26 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532178)
But you said it doesn’t matter so how does it show anything?
JFC, are you trying to have a conversation or just to be a blowhard?

If I am a Supreme Court justice and I dissent in a patent case, and I write, the majority's decision is terrible because it will block innovation that would save 1 million lives every year, that number may be completely fictitious and also irrelevant to the merits of the case, and yet I am using it to try to argue to posterity that the majority's decision is a bad thing. Do you not agree that was what Sotomayor was doing? The majority's theory had nothing to do with the idea that OSHA can only act against harms that kill lots of people. Quite the opposite -- the premise was that OSHA can't require vaccination because COVID kills people outside work too.

The big problem there is that the conservative majority reached a shitty decision, with shitty legal reasoning.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-17-2022 07:27 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532179)
cite please?
544 U.S. 460

Quote:
it seems her vote turned on it?
cite please?

eta: Here's the transcript of oral argument -- just give me page and line for what you have in mind.

Hank Chinaski 01-17-2022 08:41 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532181)
544 U.S. 460
Very cool. So Sotomayer voted voted for your side, or she had nothing to do w it?

Conf to Ty- very cool. My firm got there for what I expect will be the only time and it’s remote😢

Icky Thump 01-17-2022 09:10 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532180)
JFC, are you trying to have a conversation or just to be a blowhard?

If I am a Supreme Court justice and I dissent in a patent case, and I write, the majority's decision is terrible because it will block innovation that would save 1 million lives every year, that number may be completely fictitious and also irrelevant to the merits of the case, and yet I am using it to try to argue to posterity that the majority's decision is a bad thing. Do you not agree that was what Sotomayor was doing? The majority's theory had nothing to do with the idea that OSHA can only act against harms that kill lots of people. Quite the opposite -- the premise was that OSHA can't require vaccination because COVID kills people outside work too.

The big problem there is that the conservative majority reached a shitty decision, with shitty legal reasoning.
All about owning the libs.

Hank Chinaski 01-17-2022 10:25 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 532183)
This was silly. Ty and ggg agree, but people who actually think about stuff will find it vapid hyperbole.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-18-2022 01:18 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532182)
Very cool. So Sotomayer voted voted for your side, or she had nothing to do w it?
She was stall on the Second Circuit then.

Hank Chinaski 01-18-2022 09:31 AM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532185)
She was stall on the Second Circuit then.
I know.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-18-2022 01:05 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532186)
I know.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you were saying about her, Hank. Here's my post again, in case you missed it. Show off all your recent Supreme Court experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532179)
cite please?
544 U.S. 460

Quote:
it seems her vote turned on it?
cite please?

eta: Here's the transcript of oral argument -- just give me page and line for what you have in mind.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-18-2022 04:12 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532175)
Is there an example of a Supreme Court decision where the majority and minority differed on a straight historical question? I don't recall ever having seen one. They would take the history more seriously if it actually mattered.
Heller is a pretty good start.

They spend an awful lot of time writing about history if none of it is relevant.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-18-2022 04:14 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532188)
Heller is a pretty good start.

They spend an awful lot of time writing about history if none of it is relevant.
Heller is exactly the point. If the nine justices had spent a month locked up with the best historians on the subject, would it have changed a vote? Would you like to buy a bridge?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-18-2022 04:18 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532189)
Heller is exactly the point. If the nine justices had spent a month locked up with the best historians on the subject, would it have changed a vote? Would you like to buy a bridge?
If your position is that none of their words matter because it is all outcome oriented then you've pretty much distilled my point.

Their words should matter. The conclusion should flow from the analysis, not the other way around.

Hank spotted this, you and I apparently do agree. But I see this as a problem and you don't.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-18-2022 04:22 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 532173)
All you people posting based upon blogs you read should listen to your betters. And GGG she is not “a lawyer,” she a fucking Supreme Court Justice hearing a case that impacts every big company in this country, so “playing loose with the facts” is reprehensible, and daffy.
Dude, you do realize I was saying that playing loose with the facts is a very very bad thing. A really awful thing.

I also said she wasn't the only one to do it - Gorsuch misstated basic facts in the same arguments, and others do it all the fucking time. And we should always object.

You, however, should also learn to read, so you get basic facts, like me criticizing her for getting facts wrong. right. Fucking lawyers.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-18-2022 04:53 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532190)
If your position is that none of their words matter because it is all outcome oriented then you've pretty much distilled my point.

Their words should matter. The conclusion should flow from the analysis, not the other way around.

Hank spotted this, you and I apparently do agree. But I see this as a problem and you don't.
I think what I'm trying to say to you (both) is that the loose handling of facts is a symptom, not a cause. Yes, the Court should be engaging in principled legal analysis, not outcome-oriented hackery. The vaccination decision was outcome-oriented hackery, a shitshow of purported statutory interpretation. The reason for that is *not* that the justices are incapable of factual (or historical) analysis. As it happens, that is not their forte, and it should surprise no one, because if you were designing an institution to do that stuff well, you wouldn't take nine geriatric lawyers, who get their jobs by being politically well-connected, and give them a staff of a few booksmart but utterly inexperienced law-school graduates. Would it be nice if they did a better job? Absolutely. But the much more fundamental problem is that the conservative movement has politicized the Court. The conservative majority just prevented the government from protecting workers from getting sick, because conservatives have decided to oppose vaccination out of opposition to seeing Biden succeed. (Find me a conservative who thinks that children with lice ought to be free to go to school and sit next to lice-free children because freedom.)

The vaccination decision totally pisses me off. In that context, it also pisses me off that someone could respond to it by saying that Sotomayor is stupid because she got a predicate fact wrong in a question in oral argument. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

eta: And why is this worth arguing about? If you have a traditionalist's faith in the Court as an institution, and in constitutional law as a discipline, then you can lament the decline of craft on the part of the justices, and think things like, if only their analysis and regard for the facts were a little better -- that's the kind of reform we need. I have lost that faith, in the Court and in constitutional law. I think conservatives have corrupted the Court, and constitutional law. Both are, broadly speaking, mechanisms to sort out disagreements about how run things, and most conservatives are too afraid that they are losing to be willing to compromise about such things. Blinding oneself to what conservatives are doing, to the Court and to the country, is a form of naivety that is part of the problem, not the solution.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-18-2022 04:55 PM
Re: Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532191)
You, however, should also learn to read, so you get basic facts, like me criticizing her for getting facts wrong. right. Fucking lawyers.
Hank apparently gets to make shit up, like the idea that her vote depended on that fact. Sotomayor is stupid, but he's a storyteller!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 PM.
Page 9 of 77 « First 78 9 10111959 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com