Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK. It does seem to be theology.

Praise the Lord, you've seen the light!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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?