honorentheos wrote: Meanwhile in reality, the nine people currently serving as Justices on the Supreme Court represent decades of experience in the legal field which they have risen to the top of through intense competition and scrutiny. And they operate in the field they are absolutely best qualified in through a combination of talent, hard work and experience.
How do they measure success? Intense scrutiny by Congress? What exactly did the Justices accomplish that qualified them for the Court? The most recent one Gorsuch didn't care about a man freezing to death.
I think you have too much faith in our government. Our judges are excellent for corporate America, but not excellent to deal with complicated cases that affect the average American. Our government still has a terrible war on drugs, but it doesn't care about the evidence. Our Constitution and our Federal Government isn't inspired by some God. You really have to question them.
The New York Times report alone is enough for one to be skeptical of our Supreme Court, and I have many other reasons.
These questions can be answered only by understanding what the data says. Unfortunately, a report released by ProPublica on Tuesday suggests that the justices struggle with that task. Looking at a random sample of cases from 2011 to 2015, ProPublica found that the court cited faulty research or introduced its own errors in nearly a third of the 24 cases that relied on such facts. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/opin ... ckers.html
DoubtingThomas wrote:I think you have too much faith in our government. Our judges are excellent for corporate America, but not excellent to deal with complicated cases that affect the average American. Our government still has a terrible war on drugs, but it doesn't care about the evidence. Our Constitution and our Federal Government isn't inspired by some God. You really have to question them.
I agree that we need to be vigilant and government does lots of things with which I disagree. We agree that we need to question them.
But that's not what you are doing. You are asserting that some mythical concept you call Science overseen by Scientists is the panacea to the problem of uneven government. And these two things look an awful lot like Church and Prophets inspired by God believed to be superior by religionists. That isn't my expressing disdain for actual science or scientists. I just don't believe in Science and Scientists anymore than I believe in God or Prophets.
I do believe that while the governing in the US has hit a rough patch, this is more due to drifting away from the underlying Enlightenment-based liberal principles that inspired our system of government than it is due to the system being fatally flawed.
I also think that the appeal of authoritarianism is not limited to Trump supporters but has dangerous roots in the extreme left as well.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well" - Justice Scalia, total dumbass
I have a friend with a PhD in Japanese language. He told me that part of him did it just to see how many morons had a PhD. He said the results he found were shocking
As soon as you concern yourself with the 'good' and 'bad' of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you. - O'Sensei
honorentheos wrote:I agree that we need to be vigilant and government does lots of things with which I disagree. We agree that we need to question them.
But that's not what you are doing. You are asserting that some mythical concept you call Science overseen by Scientists is the panacea to the problem of uneven government. And these two things look an awful lot like Church and Prophets inspired by God believed to be superior by religionists. That isn't my expressing disdain for actual science or scientists. I just don't believe in Science and Scientists anymore than I believe in God or Prophets.
I do believe that while the governing in the US has hit a rough patch, this is more due to drifting away from the underlying Enlightenment-based liberal principles that inspired our system of government than it is due to the system being fatally flawed.
I also think that the appeal of authoritarianism is not limited to Trump supporters but has dangerous roots in the extreme left as well.
Good. Let me try to be more open minded. I know Justices are law and constitution scholars, but how do you know that scientist wouldn't do a better job? I think it is something that our country should try, but if I am wrong please let me know why.
Are we back to something like: every case where I disagree with the result means the Justices heads are filled with doggie poop?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Again, DT, did you read the actual ruling? What specifically did the Supreme Court get wrong on this one?
ETA: Here, let's take a short cut because I know you didn't read it.
The majority of justices held that the State of Ohio could a) use the fact someone failed to vote as a trigger to send them a prepaid postage notice to be returned confirming they didn't move, and b) remove them from the rolls as a registered voter if they both failed to return the card AND fail to participate in two subsequent federal elections. The arguments on both sides deal with the nuance of language contained in the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. The language on which the debate hung was on if the failure to vote being the trigger for sending the notice to confirm residency violated a clause in the National Voter Registration Act that failing to vote could not be the reason someone is removed from the rolls.
While I understand the historic concern, the facts of the case aren't nearly as nefarious as it's being portrayed. As bad as it may seem to some people, I think trying to be neutral on it and not trying to insert context makes the ruling the right answer. It's a case where additional legislation would be more appropriate as a response to the concern.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote: The language on which the debate hung was on if the failure to vote being the trigger for sending the notice to confirm residency violated a clause in the National Voter Registration Act that failing to vote could not be the reason someone is removed from the rolls.
Okay. I just have one question. Why did the Supreme Court stop anti-abortion laws? Really help me understand please.
