APP - 'Judicial Philosophy'

[midcan5]

This is well said and brilliant.

'Sen. Whitehouse Speaks on Day 3 of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson'

A conservative (dark money) SCOTUS is simply the legislative branch of the oligarchs, the corporatist, and the powerful over the working class.

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

"Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

'13 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time'

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html


"Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished." Jeremy Bentham

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A conservative (dark money) SCOTUS is simply the legislative branch of the oligarchs, the corporatist, and the powerful over the working class.

and i'll just bet that you think a liberal SCOTUS would be a shining beacon for the good of humanity, don't you?

"Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished." Jeremy Bentham

you forgot cops

 

[Taichiliberal]

This is well said and brilliant.

'Sen. Whitehouse Speaks on Day 3 of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson'

A conservative (dark money) SCOTUS is simply the legislative branch of the oligarchs, the corporatist, and the powerful over the working class.

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

"Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

'13 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time'

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html


"Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished." Jeremy Bentham

BRAVO! ENCORE!

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

'Sen. Whitehouse Speaks on Day 3 of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson'

I think he's upset because the Republicans have finally gotten enough justices on the Supreme Court to stop progressives from violating the Constitution.

A conservative (dark money) SCOTUS is simply the legislative branch of the oligarchs, the corporatist, and the powerful over the working class.

It is the conservative justices who support fundamental civil liberties like the right to keep and bear arms.

It is the progressive justices who oppose fundamental civil liberties like the right to keep and bear arms.

It is hard to see how progressives can credibly claim to support the working class when they keep voting to violate the working class' fundamental civil liberties.

'13 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time'
https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html

They think it was bad for the Supreme Court to step in and block Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election??

It was too late for Al Gore to win anyway despite his cheating. December 12 was the deadline. If they hadn't stopped him, the only thing Al Gore could have achieved is throwing the nation into a pointless Constitutional crisis.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I think he's upset because the Republicans have finally gotten enough justices on the Supreme Court to stop progressives from violating the Constitution.



It is the conservative justices who support fundamental civil liberties like the right to keep and bear arms.

It is the progressive justices who oppose fundamental civil liberties like the right to keep and bear arms.

It is hard to see how progressives can credibly claim to support the working class when they keep voting to violate the working class' fundamental civil liberties.



They think it was bad for the Supreme Court to step in and block Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election??

It was too late for Al Gore to win anyway despite his cheating. December 12 was the deadline. If they hadn't stopped him, the only thing Al Gore could have achieved is throwing the nation into a pointless Constitutional crisis.

I note that you completely side step the content of what the man said in favor of your personal opinions, supposition and conjecture that have NOTHING to do with the topic of his speech.

Typical MAGA move; avoid what you can't disprove or defend against, change the subject and accuse others of not responding to that detour.

You fool no one but the man you see in the mirror, and you convince no one but fellow willfully ignorant MAGA minions.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

I note that you completely side step the content of what the man said in favor of your personal opinions, supposition and conjecture that have NOTHING to do with the topic of his speech.

That isn't quite right. My opinions, supposition, and conjecture was related to the topic of his speech.

I was speculating on his underlying motivation for taking the position that he expressed in his speech.

Typical MAGA move; avoid what you can't disprove or defend against,

I listened to his speech before replying. But I confess that I've completely forgotten the entire speech already. And I'm listening to something else right now.

I'll listen to it again later tonight just to be sure, but I don't recall feeling that there was anything I would need to disprove or defend against.

change the subject

I don't think that speculating on his underlying motivation is changing the subject.

and accuse others of not responding to that detour.

I'm not sure I would use the term "accuse". That implies wrongdoing.

People are free to respond to points expressed on the internet, or not respond to them, as they please.

I mean, I guess I'd prefer it if an intelligent conversation occurred. But if I put my points out there and no one responds, that's OK.

You fool no one but the man you see in the mirror,

I don't fool myself either. I am not trying to fool anyone.

and you convince no one but fellow willfully ignorant MAGA minions.

If so, that is evidence that MAGA minions respond to facts and logic, and others do not. Good for MAGA minions. If they were ignorant before, they won't be after they read my posts.

 

[Taichiliberal]

That isn't quite right. My opinions, supposition, and conjecture was related to the topic of his speech.

I was speculating on his underlying motivation for taking the position that he expressed in his speech.



I listened to his speech before replying. But I confess that I've completely forgotten the entire speech already. And I'm listening to something else right now.

I'll listen to it again later tonight just to be sure, but I don't recall feeling that there was anything I would need to disprove or defend against.



I don't think that speculating on his underlying motivation is changing the subject.



I'm not sure I would use the term "accuse". That implies wrongdoing.

People are free to respond to points expressed on the internet, or not respond to them, as they please.

I mean, I guess I'd prefer it if an intelligent conversation occurred. But if I put my points out there and no one responds, that's OK.



I don't fool myself either. I am not trying to fool anyone.



If so, that is evidence that MAGA minions respond to facts and logic, and others do not. Good for MAGA minions. If they were ignorant before, they won't be after they read my posts.

Oh dear God, yet another right wing wonk long on denial and dodges, short of actual honest discussion at the topic at hand.

You discuss NOTHING regarding what the man is saying, which is that the straw man argument trumpeted by GOP parrots and flunkies is just that...a straw man argument because "philosophy" is NOT a requirement of a judge. He goes into GREAT detail as to why this is so. YOU offer NOTHING in way of point-for-point rebuttal, and instead try to detour the discussion based on your guesswork and opinion, as if they are based in fact (which they are not). Nor do you address the topic at hand.

All you've done here is just blow smoke with what is essentially an empty rebuttal, of which I already addressed. You can make all the self aggrandizing claims you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what the man is saying (general gain saying won't cut it either)

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Oh dear God, yet another right wing wonk long on denial and dodges, short of actual honest discussion at the topic at hand.

You discuss NOTHING regarding what the man is saying, which is that the straw man argument trumpeted by GOP parrots and flunkies is just that...a straw man argument because "philosophy" is NOT a requirement of a judge. He goes into GREAT detail as to why this is so. YOU offer NOTHING in way of point-for-point rebuttal, and instead try to detour the discussion based on your guesswork and opinion, as if they are based in fact (which they are not). Nor do you address the topic at hand.

All you've done here is just blow smoke with what is essentially an empty rebuttal, of which I already addressed. You can make all the self aggrandizing claims you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what the man is saying (general gain saying won't cut it either)

That is incorrect. I've now reviewed the video again, and his two points are:

a) he does not like judicial originalists, and

b) he does not like the fact that the Republicans have placed so many judicial originalists on the Supreme Court.

My comment "I think he's upset because the Republicans have finally gotten enough justices on the Supreme Court to stop progressives from violating the Constitution," is entirely on topic and directly addresses both of his points.

As for a rebuttal, there is nothing in the video to rebut. He is perfectly free to dislike the fact that the Republicans have enough justices on the Supreme Court to prevent progressives from violating the Constitution.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Oh dear God, yet another right wing wonk long on denial and dodges, short of actual honest discussion at the topic at hand.

You discuss NOTHING regarding what the man is saying, which is that the straw man argument trumpeted by GOP parrots and flunkies is just that...a straw man argument because "philosophy" is NOT a requirement of a judge. He goes into GREAT detail as to why this is so. YOU offer NOTHING in way of point-for-point rebuttal, and instead try to detour the discussion based on your guesswork and opinion, as if they are based in fact (which they are not). Nor do you address the topic at hand.

All you've done here is just blow smoke with what is essentially an empty rebuttal, of which I already addressed. You can make all the self aggrandizing claims you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what the man is saying (general gain saying won't cut it either)

That is incorrect. I've now reviewed the video again, and his two points are:

a) he does not like judicial originalists, and

b) he does not like the fact that the Republicans have placed so many judicial originalists on the Supreme Court.

My comment "I think he's upset because the Republicans have finally gotten enough justices on the Supreme Court to stop progressives from violating the Constitution," is entirely on topic and directly addresses both of his points.

As for a rebuttal, there is nothing in the video to rebut. He is perfectly free to dislike the fact that the Republicans have enough justices on the Supreme Court to prevent progressives from violating the Constitution.

Either you don't comprehend what is being said or you are being insipidly stubborn and are trying to misrepresent what was stated. For the honest, objective reader, here's what Sen. Whitehouse said:

https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/0...udicial-philosophy-of-supreme-court-nominees/

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Either you don't comprehend what is being said or you are being insipidly stubborn and are trying to misrepresent what was stated.

Or maybe I am correct.

For the honest, objective reader, here's what Sen. Whitehouse said:
https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/0...udicial-philosophy-of-supreme-court-nominees/

That covers only the first half of what he said on the video. The article stops before he gets to his second point.

Bogus headline on that article. The Republicans' concern with originalism is hardly empty. It is important that the courts start enforcing the Constitution.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Either you don't comprehend what is being said or you are being insipidly stubborn and are trying to misrepresent what was stated.

I just had a thought. Whatever points you believe I'm missing from his speech, why don't you express those points in your own words, and then I'll try responding to that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Or maybe I am correct.



That covers only the first half of what he said on the video. The article stops before he gets to his second point.

Bogus headline on that article. The Republicans' concern with originalism is hardly empty. It is important that the courts start enforcing the Constitution.

You are SO full of it. The transcript AND the video tell the tale....Whitehouse DOES NOTHING of what you accuse him off or insinuate. He's VERY specific about what particular voting actions and issues he has a stance on, and how "judicial philosophy" has NOTHING to do with those issues or with the qualifications of a SCOTUS candidate. That you can't logically fault his assessment but instead parrot an empty mantra by the MAGA GOP is pathetic, especially in light of Judge Brown's record (of which the GOPers could not misrepresent with the myopic, misleading questions).

The rational, objective reader can easily see your folly by just reading and listening....your absurd insistence that your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture is fact non-withstanding. Carry on, my little right wing wonk.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Either you don't comprehend what is being said or you are being insipidly stubborn and are trying to misrepresent what was stated.

I just had a thought. Whatever points you believe I'm missing from his speech, why don't you express those points in your own words, and then I'll try responding to that.

You've already expressed your "thoughts"....of which are just denial, insipid stubbornness and a tendency towards willful ignorance. I've countered with valid documented FACTS via a video and a transcript and my statements. You don't accept them. That's your problem. I'm not going to rehash this topic because you can't be adult enough to concede a point and hope for a "got'cha" moment.

So unless you've got anything new to add, I'd say we're done here.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

You are SO full of it. The transcript AND the video tell the tale....Whitehouse DOES NOTHING of what you accuse him off or insinuate.

All I see/hear from his words are complaints about originalist judicial philosophy.

He's VERY specific about what particular voting actions and issues he has a stance on, and how "judicial philosophy" has NOTHING to do with those issues or with the qualifications of a SCOTUS candidate.

Yes. He very specifically dislikes originalist judicial philosophy.

That you can't logically fault his assessment but instead parrot an empty mantra by the MAGA GOP is pathetic,

I do not agree that I am parroting an empty mantra. I am addressing his stated position.

I do not agree that it is pathetic that I find no logical fault in his words. He has the right to dislike originalism. That's no reflection on me.

especially in light of Judge Brown's record (of which the GOPers could not misrepresent with the myopic, misleading questions).

I confess that I know zero about her record.

I listen to the evening news, and the confirmation hearings were covered there, so I did hear some about them, but I've paid absolutely no attention to the confirmation hearings beyond whatever is mentioned on the evening news.

I admit that I wouldn't mind reading opinions/dissents (if any) that she has written in the past regarding Second Amendment issues. But I haven't bothered to look into the matter.

The rational, objective reader can easily see your folly by just reading and listening....your absurd insistence that your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture is fact non-withstanding. Carry on, my little right wing wonk.

I never insisted.

I think it is likely that I nailed it and my speculation is accurate, but there is always a chance that I could be wrong.

You've already expressed your "thoughts"....of which are just denial, insipid stubbornness and a tendency towards willful ignorance.

No. My thoughts were speculation as to his underlying motivation.

I've countered with valid documented FACTS via a video and a transcript and my statements. You don't accept them.

Well, I don't see in them what you want me to see in them.

That's your problem.

It's not really a problem for me.

I'm not going to rehash this topic because you can't be adult enough to concede a point and hope for a "got'cha" moment.

I am adult enough to concede a point when I see a point to be conceded. I do not see any points to be conceded here however.

So unless you've got anything new to add, I'd say we're done here.

Yes. Probably so.

 

[Taichiliberal]

All I see/hear from his words are complaints about originalist judicial philosophy.



Yes. He very specifically dislikes originalist judicial philosophy.



I do not agree that I am parroting an empty mantra. I am addressing his stated position.

I do not agree that it is pathetic that I find no logical fault in his words. He has the right to dislike originalism. That's no reflection on me.



I confess that I know zero about her record.

I listen to the evening news, and the confirmation hearings were covered there, so I did hear some about them, but I've paid absolutely no attention to the confirmation hearings beyond whatever is mentioned on the evening news.

I admit that I wouldn't mind reading opinions/dissents (if any) that she has written in the past regarding Second Amendment issues. But I haven't bothered to look into the matter.



I never insisted.

I think it is likely that I nailed it and my speculation is accurate, but there is always a chance that I could be wrong.



No. My thoughts were speculation as to his underlying motivation.



Well, I don't see in them what you want me to see in them.



It's not really a problem for me.



I am adult enough to concede a point when I see a point to be conceded. I do not see any points to be conceded here however.



Yes. Probably so.

Yep, just as I thought...SOS from Anvil, who apparently thinks that no one with an 8th of a brain can back track the chronology of the posts and deconstruct his obvious smoke blowing. Anvil is one those guys who thinks plain denial, revisionism and repetition will mask his inability to truly defend his position in a logical, fact based debate. Having the last predictable word in this vein is about all Anvil is good for at this point. So yes, we are truly done here despite his long winded rhetoric. See you readers on another thread or response to another poster.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

his inability to truly defend his position in a logical, fact based debate.

I am quite able to defend my position. But so far no one here has challenged my position. Your unhappiness with the fact that I don't see in that video whatever it is that you want me to see certainly isn't a challenge to my position.

There isn't much call for a defense when there is no challenge to defend against.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the notion that a conservative Supreme Court is against the working class is clearly nonsense. It's the conservatives on the court who are defending civil liberties like the right to keep and bear arms.

The notion that it's bad for originalist justices to have control over our courts only makes sense to people who dislike having the Constitution enforced. Because that's what originalist justices do. They enforce the Constitution as it was written and intended.

Opinions differ, but personally I find that to be a good thing.