Supreme Court decision of the day

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

 

 

So the six conservative justices ruled yes, and the three liberal justices ruled no. What does that tell you?

It tells us that the justices rule on ideology. It shouldn’t be that way but unfortunately it is. It’s pretty sad that we know exactly how they will rule even before hearing a case. I was answering his question as why people blame the SCOTUS. Most people want the court to support their ideology as opposed to what the constitution says. 

[tdawg87]

Just now, Jason said:

It tells us that the justices rule on ideology. It shouldn’t be that way but unfortunately it is. It’s pretty sad that we know exactly how they will rule even before hearing a case. I was answering his question as why people blame the SCOTUS. Most people want the court to support their ideology as opposed to what the constitution says. 

I told you this would happen.

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

It tells us that the justices rule on ideology. It shouldn’t be that way but unfortunately it is. It’s pretty sad that we know exactly how they will rule even before hearing a case. I was answering his question as why people blame the SCOTUS. Most people want the court to support their ideology as opposed to what the constitution says. 

True. Plus, because the Senate confirms SC justices, and because there are more red states than blue states yet every state has the same amount of senators, the SC is naturally slanted in Republicans' favor.

[Dtwncbad]

15 hours ago, Taylor said:

 

 

So the six conservative justices ruled yes, and the three liberal justices ruled no. What does that tell you?

Um, that they view the Constitution (and often their own intrinsic purpose) quite differently?

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Um, that they view the Constitution (and often their own intrinsic purpose) quite differently?

What does the Constitution say about finality versus justice in the criminal justice system?

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Taylor said:

What does the Constitution say about finality versus justice in the criminal justice system?

I think we are having different conversations.  I am saying that often liberals Judges try to “judge” the case to create an outcome that feels right and just while conservative judges view their job to strictly measure the case against what they actually see in the constitution, knowing that the outcome of their decision may not end up tasting good to even themselves.

[tdawg87]

I think the entire court system is fucked. From top to bottom.

[Taylor]

30 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I think we are having different conversations.  I am saying that often liberals Judges try to “judge” the case to create an outcome that feels right and just while conservative judges view their job to strictly measure the case against what they actually see in the constitution, knowing that the outcome of their decision may not end up tasting good to even themselves.

Ha ha. It's like you think only liberal justices are biased.

[Dtwncbad]

38 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Ha ha. It's like you think only liberal justices are biased.

Nobody is perfect.  But I know without question that I have a better chance of a conservative judge following the constitution than a liberal judge.

The least political the court could be would be by strictly following the constitution.  And anyone that is described as someone who strictly follows the document is labeled as conservative.

So if you are saying being conservative in this context is “biased” then I agree.  I am biased toward being disciplined and following the document.

[Taylor]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Nobody is perfect.  But I know without question that I have a better chance of a conservative judge following the constitution than a liberal judge.

The least political the court could be would be by strictly following the constitution.  And anyone that is described as someone who strictly follows the document is labeled as conservative.

So if you are saying being conservative in this context is “biased” then I agree.  I am biased toward being disciplined and following the document.

The Constitution was written in a different century and is therefore interpreted by everybody who reads it. Even a "literal" read of the Constitution is influenced by one's personal biases, values, and experiences.

[Dtwncbad]

13 minutes ago, Taylor said:

The Constitution was written in a different century and is therefore interpreted by everybody who reads it. Even a "literal" read of the Constitution is influenced by one's personal biases, values, and experiences.

We agree.  But knowing what we know, you kind of have to choose if you prefer:

a). a judge that is more comfortable reading between the lines in order to have an outcome that feels good to them

b). a judge that is less comfortable reading between the lines and is less concerned with how their (best attempt at) literal translation makes them feel personally

Reliably, anyone close to the “b” description above is labeled as “conservative.”

I am by no means saying every “conservative” judge isn’t biased.  I am saying if you found an entirely unbiased judge that was strictly 100% committed to ruling based on the Constitution alone. . . . That judge would be labeled an extreme conservative.

So the description “conservative” when it comes to a judge could mean being quite politically biased and it would also be the description of a judge that is so committed to the document that they are not POLITICALLY biased.

In this way, arguing if a judge is or should be “conservative” is almost always an unresolvable conversation because the context is tricky.

 

[Kotchman]

26 minutes ago, Taylor said:

The Constitution was written in a different century and is therefore interpreted by everybody who reads it. Even a "literal" read of the Constitution is influenced by one's personal biases, values, and experiences.

While it’s a stand alone document, it’s not the only work of the founders. We have 1000s of speeches and correspondence documents that reiterate their intentions. These documents are generally ignored in favor of liberal opinions that came along 100 -150 years later. It’s amazing how our school history books source some asshat from 1960 on topics that were clearly defined by the founders in their own words. 

[cals]

58 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Nobody is perfect.  But I know without question that I have a better chance of a conservative judge following the constitution than a liberal judge.

The least political the court could be would be by strictly following the constitution.  And anyone that is described as someone who strictly follows the document is labeled as conservative.

So if you are saying being conservative in this context is “biased” then I agree.  I am biased toward being disciplined and following the document.

[cals]

But I am quite impressed with your confidence in your own bullshit.

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, cals said:

[Blarg]

43 minutes ago, cals said:

But I am quite impressed with your confidence in your own bullshit.

A man after your own heart. 

[Taylor]

6 minutes ago, Blarg said:

A man after your own heart. 

And yours.

[Taylor]

To be fair, we're all pretty confident in our BS. 

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, Taylor said:

To be fair, we're all pretty confident in our BS. 

Yep. My BS is the best out there 

[Blarg]

23 minutes ago, Taylor said:

And yours.

@Taylor I left you some homework in a PM. This time don't flake on it. Tadpoles are relying on it. 

[cals]

26 minutes ago, Taylor said:

To be fair, we're all pretty confident in our BS. 

Yes but downtown Carlsbad takes it to a new level.  He’s been lecturing you on a topic he literally knows Jack shit about but with the self-assurance and confidence of a con law professor.  Again, it’s really impressive.

[Taylor]

19 minutes ago, Blarg said:

@Taylor I left you some homework in a PM. This time don't flake on it. Tadpoles are relying on it. 

Started reading it. Good stuff so far. I like how the author writes.

[Dtwncbad]

38 minutes ago, cals said:

Yes but downtown Carlsbad takes it to a new level.  He’s been lecturing you on a topic he literally knows Jack shit about but with the self-assurance and confidence of a con law professor.  Again, it’s really impressive.

Cals again, reliably, just can’t control his little boner for me.  

[Blarg]

26 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Started reading it. Good stuff so far. I like how the author writes.

The article was written with an individual in mind rather than two trying to navigate the same path. It would be a good project to draw your octopus and the draw what you think your wife's is. Then swap drawings to see if you both really understand each others goals and if you can make goals that intersect. The goal is to create a Kraken not a squid.

 

[cals]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Cals again, reliably, just can’t control his little boner for me.  

Just positing out facts, chief.