SCOTUS Bias Question

Zander · 2023-07-08T18:38:22.581Z

If highly educated and respectable men can’t agree on the meaning of holy texts, as has been going on for millennia, I’m not sure why we’re so dumbfounded the same phenomenon happens with a constitution, laws, and regulations written by men.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2023-07-08T19:58:24.524Z

Everything else being equal (age, education, intelligence, etc) two duplicate judges can arrive at different conclusions based on how they view constitutional interpretation. I.e an originalist vs. a textualist.

WuWei · 2023-07-08T21:33:47.493Z

Not so. Not all of the 6 are originalists or textualist. There is a mix.

Which one are the 3?

Ben_Natuf · 2023-07-08T23:52:32.450Z

originalists and textualists are very close in philosophy. Its the left end that’s more interested in outcomes than inputs.

Zander · 2023-07-09T00:39:23.282Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

Everything else being equal (age, education, intelligence, etc) two duplicate judges can arrive at different conclusions based on how they view constitutional interpretation. I.e an originalist vs. a textualist.

The constitution is relatively short, and silent about a lot of things (which is ideal I think). But the result is a good amount of gray area. Or at least enough gray area for highly educated and respectable people to disagree about those gray areas. That’s why we need a scotus. Or why nobody can offer a preferable alternative (imo).

ETA: yes, judges do find ways to manufacture gray areas. Both “sides” have done that, but the left justices more so. Substantive due process, for example, is a sham. I won’t even try to defend that artifice.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2023-07-09T00:42:44.478Z

We could turn the whole mess over to ChatGPT

Zander · 2023-07-09T00:44:17.131Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

We could turn the whole mess over to ChatGPT

Hahaha. You know what, at this point, why the hell not.

WuWei · 2023-07-09T12:26:43.558Z

All of this stuff is about control. When the government provides and decides about everything we have, they can take away anything we have to keep us in line. And there’s nothing we can do about it.

There is no freedom here, there is permission.

WuWei · 2023-07-09T12:49:54.253Z

This article tells a story between the lines.

NPR

Supreme Court dissents and rejoinders, with respect and disrespect

Feelings seem raw at the court, certainly for the court's three liberal justices, who were on the losing end of some of the court's biggest cases this term, but also for the conservatives.

Notice the part about Navaho water rights.

WuWei · 2023-07-09T12:52:20.579Z

Ben_Natuf:

originalists and textualists are very close in philosophy. Its the left end that’s more interested in outcomes than inputs.

Is it? Read Roberts.

Munimula1 · 2023-07-09T14:03:47.729Z

In today’s NY Times, there is a big article about Clarence Thomas. "As he argued from the bench in his concurrence to the recent decision striking down affirmative action, the court should be “focusing on individuals as individuals,” rather than on the view that Americans are “all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”

Where is any of that in the Constitution? We have been duped.

Ben_Natuf · 2023-07-09T14:22:36.313Z

Roberts is a politician in a dress.

Tguns · 2023-07-09T14:59:02.057Z

Which part are you looking for in the constitution?

The part about individuals…or the part that claims "Americans are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”?

WuWei · 2023-07-09T17:47:19.563Z

Munimula1:

In today’s NY Times, there is a big article about Clarence Thomas. "As he argued from the bench in his concurrence to the recent decision striking down affirmative action, the court should be “focusing on individuals as individuals,” rather than on the view that Americans are “all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”

Where is any of that in the Constitution? We have been duped.

In the Bill of Rights.

WuWei · 2023-07-09T17:47:56.350Z

Ben_Natuf:

Roberts is a politician in a dress.

Are not they all? Kind of the point of the thread.

zantax · 2023-07-09T18:08:12.780Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

We could turn the whole mess over to ChatGPT

Sure, as long as conservatives get to do the RHLF.

Munimula1 · 2023-07-09T18:21:11.500Z

WuWei:

Munimula1:

In today’s NY Times, there is a big article about Clarence Thomas. "As he argued from the bench in his concurrence to the recent decision striking down affirmative action, the court should be “focusing on individuals as individuals,” rather than on the view that Americans are “all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”

Where is any of that in the Constitution? We have been duped.

In the Bill of Rights.

No, I don’t think so.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2023-07-09T19:19:35.601Z

zantax:

Supreme_War_Pig:

We could turn the whole mess over to ChatGPT

Sure, as long as conservatives get to do the RHLF.

And that takes us right back to the bias problem.

It’s almost like imperfect humans design imperfect systems and institutions.

Zander · 2023-07-09T19:59:25.614Z

Supreme_War_Pig:

zantax:

Supreme_War_Pig:

We could turn the whole mess over to ChatGPT

Sure, as long as conservatives get to do the RHLF.

And that takes us right back to the bias problem.

It’s almost like imperfect humans design imperfect systems and institutions.

If only we had politicians and judges who, down the line, had identical opinions about the constitution and laws. And a dictatorship of the people to safeguard that. It would be utopia.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2023-07-09T20:24:50.087Z

Stop that!