lollol
8d ago
Financial disagreements is the predominant reason leading to divorce. I would even argue that most other relationship problems can be helped by being more wealthy. But anyway. You two seem to have good communication. Maybe throw some videos from “I Will Teach You To Be Rich” her way. I do think trying to live a rich life is more sensible than just hoarding wealth. That guy also specializes in the niche of financial advice for couples, and navigating all the relationship issues when it comes to money. I’m not sure if 60k in emergency fund is low or high for you but 100k is a lot when compared to my own situation (engineer couple in NYC). It seems like your wife has some deep rooted fears or pathologies when it comes to money that makes her want such a high emergency fund. On the other hand, you have the other extreme, what is your reasoning for wanting $0 in emergency fund cash? Is there something you’re not noticing about your relationship with money as well?
One caveat on the 100k emergency fund thing, if you guys have really high annual spend, and I’m talking like 200k and above here, then 100k makes total sense as that’s only 6 months of spend.
lollol
10d ago
Just kicking off this thread to see what people think will come out of the Xi/Trump meeting.
- would China help US out regarding Iran? (Opportunity for China to look bigger and more powerful than the US)
- How many deals will be announced? How many of them after closer inspection will be smaller than what was announced? (Soybeans for example)
- Would there be any discussions of human rights? (I heard about Jimmy Lai twice from WSJ and The Dispatch? lately)
- Would Trump change US position on Taiwan? (from "the US support One China and support the people of Taiwan's democratic rights for self-determination" to "the US opposes Taiwan's independence")
- Any surprise / dark horse bet that no one is talking about?
lollol
11d ago
No matter the hype for Wandering Inn, there's no way it justifies its length.
I understand that it's a detraction for many people no doubt, but there is a reason there is hype for it. Honestly when I was getting caught up, I didn't even realize the length cause I was getting really sucked in. The books are getting real prints I believe so maybe that's a good way to get into it. My friends and I tried to convince a friend to read One Piece for over a decade and he always balked at the length. He started reading after he watched the One Piece Live Action to all of our dismay lol.
lollol
12d ago
At least for me, being able to offload some stuff to AI means I have more time to participate in this forum. My coworkers and I are in a mode where we're assumed we might be laid off in a year or two. Or, in the end, everyone realizes only humans can get sued.
lollol
12d ago
same, I was surprised too. But I searched it up and looks like it is a known Cap1 behavior. It would have been my first card with Cap1, and the first one I signed up for in a while. though maybe now you say it, i wonder if the bilt card changing did anything.
lollol
15d ago
I would recommend The Wandering Inn for anything. The main character is definitely always earnest.
lollol
15d ago
Very worth it. Credit cards are tools for massive wealth transfer from the incompetent to the competent. Capital One actually reject me recently which after some light research, it's likely because I won't be profitable (in interest and fees) for them. There is usually one or two purchases a year that it's always worth it to open a credit card for. For example opening a Hawaiian Airline credit card to get highly subsidized flights due to the Sign On Bonus (SUB) to Hawaii that year for example.
lollol
16d ago
He’s an idea of a person, and has successfully convinced Democrats that the idea he is projecting will win and therefore allow them to acquire more power.
So like Fetterman?
lollol
16d ago
You are likely right it was decided wrong. And I did read some of the source. I’m not sure how much of it was decided wrong though but certainly seems like some of it was flawed.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Yes no one would read your post at this point. And I have no idea how you could tie it into something else.
Lol yeah
Biblical translations are not the same thing as translating Spanish today. And it is one issue where discrepancies occur with Con Law today which is an interesting point. Bible was written in dead languages. And the translations are hundred of years even thousands of years later. It is in fact a hard translation with few source materials to really understand the earlier words. Con Law runs into this issue as English vernacular has changed over 250 years, but I assume far less than a bible translation. I would think if someone is translating Game of Thrones into Spanish the meaning of the words would not change that much. They wouldn’t be identical translations. Some translators are better poets and would make the story more enjoyable to read in Spanish. But for the most part meaning should not differ between translators.
I would like to draw your attention to this excellent article on "The Peculiar Perils of Literary Translation" where you can find such quotes like: "Translation is writing. It's rewriting a literary work. You write the same book but in a different language, which means it's not the same book anymore. It's a sibling. It's not a twin.".
I would like to further emphasize how a translation is essentially a recreation of the work, so much that "[the original author] himself read One Hundred Years of Solitude in the [English] Harper & Row edition and pronounced it better than his Spanish original". That's very recent history, where the translator and the author are both alive and can correspond with each other.
Since I am not a Spanish speaker, I would like to present you the reverse: what happens to different translations of Spanish novel, Don Quixote, into English. Like just compare these 4 recent translations:
John Rutherford (2000)
Idle reader: I don’t have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book, since it is the son of my brain, to be the most beautiful, elegant, and intelligent book imaginable…
Edith Grossman (2003)
Idle reader: without my swearing to it, you can believe that I would like this book, the child of my understanding, to be the most beautiful, the most brilliant, and the most discreet that anyone could imagine.
James H Montgomery (2006)
Idle reader, you may be assured, without my swearing an oath, that I should like this book, as the child of my intellect, to be the most beautiful, the most elegant, and the most tasteful one imaginable.
Gerald J Davis (2012)
Gentle reader, you may believe me, without my swearing an oath, that I would willingly desire this book, as a child of my imagination, to be the most beautiful, and most graceful, and the wisest that can be conceived.
Sure, the grand meaning might be nearly the same, but I do think if we are to examine these interpretations of the same text, they're quite different! "son of my brain" vs "child of my understanding" vs "child of my intellect" vs "child of my imagination". These are quite broad, and the readers of these different translations would come out with quite different feelings.
So back to your analogy of translating GOT to Spanish and comparison to constitutional law. It would be more appropriate to compare to a situation where George R.R. Martin hands ten writers a one-page outline saying "a great battle happens, the heroes face hard choices, there are consequences," and asking them each to write the chapter. You'd get ten different chapters, all faithful to the outline, none of them "wrong". And that's exactly what the genuinely contested constitutional clauses are. "The court is just a Senate" only lands if there's a "real" reading judges are failing to apply. For cases on contested clauses, the text often runs out (and as I mentioned, sometimes deliberately made to run out) and someone has to decide. They don't have a choice but to interpret.
lollol
16d ago
This is, as far as I can tell, simply my "natural" response to the painting
I've been to many art museums in my life. I've always detested the modern art museums. None of what's in it makes sense to me. Slap dash of colors on a canvas, physical pieces made of trash, mundane things with fancy lighting and put on a pedestal, films that are just moving shapes. Everyone else is always walking around all respectfully while I'm over here not feeling reverential at all. Then one time I went to the San Francisco Modern Art Museum and saw the Polar Stampede by Lee Krasner. It was on the 5th or 6th floor. It was a big, huge, piece. there was conveniently a good viewing chair in front of it. Objectively, it was just like any of the other pieces of art that I held no feelings towards. I didn't even know who the artist was, I assumed it was some thing Pollock-y. But the emotional impact of that painting struck me like hammer on glass. I sat on that chair for no less than half an hour just staring at the piece, trying to take it all in, like a man jumping into a river after days of desert. I had just recently came out of a period of depression, and that piece of art was like a mirror to my own feelings at the time. I've never wished more that I was incredibly wealthy and can grab the nearest personnel of the museum, then just go up the chain, then make an offer they can't refuse, then hang it somewhere that I can view every day, and presumably have fancy cocktail parties in front of it. I still don't like modern art, but since that da, I know that each piece of art has an audience, and I am lucky to have found mine.
Wasn’t Dred Scott correctly decided? Their listed in constitution as property?
Took me quite a bit to research all this. I can definitely say now I know more about Dred Scott than the average person.
First, I would like to draw your attention to "What Was Wrong with Dred Scott, What's Right About Brown" written by Robert A Burt. Much of what I say next will just be a rehash of what was written there.
In summary, Dred Scott has serious legal problem (in either textual or originalist readings) even back in 1857. Let's examine each of the holdings that Taney decided in Dred Scott:
1. Black people can never be U.S. citizens. Justice Curtis's dissent dismantled this with historical fact: at ratification, free Black men actually voted in five states — New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina — making them state citizens, and through that, U.S. citizens. Taney had to argue state citizenship and federal citizenship were separate and should be severed from each other, which contradicted standard doctrine. Curtis dissent was so persuasive Taney delayed the ruling to add 18 pages of rebuttal.
Now if one asks "would the Founders have explicitly excluded Black citizenship had they foreseen 1857?" Taney might have been right. But that's not a legal question. The Constitution as written by the Founders didn't exclude black people from citizenship. In a textual reading, judges interpret what was written, not what someone might have written under different circumstances. In an originalist reading, clearly for the Founders, they must have considered it because clearly there were states that had black people as citizens at the time of the drafting and they continued to be citizens post-ratification. Furthermore, one might even say that at the time of ratification, slavery seemed to be in decline with many states putting in laws that seem to indicate emancipation was just around the corner. This is the case seeing as Jefferson wrote in his 1787 Notes on The State of Virginia:
2. Congress can't ban slavery in territories. Taney's argument here had two claims.
First, he claimed Article IV, Section 3, which says "Congress shall have Power to... make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", only applied to territories the U.S. owned at ratification, not anything acquired later. His support was a semantic comparison to the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "D.C. clause". Taney's argument: since the Framers used stronger, more sweeping language ("exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever") for D.C., the weaker language ("needful Rules and Regulations") for territories must mean less power. Or even more specifically, less power than would be needed to ban slavery. I will concede that there is a certain textual reading that can push for this claim, but I think we can see there is no originalist reading of this as Taney cited no Founder, no ratifying convention, no contemporary witness for this.
Second, he argued structurally that since territories must eventually become states "on equal footing" (further reading is Equal Footing Doctrine) Congress couldn't make decisions, like banning slavery, that would prejudge what those future states could choose. By itself, this already contains much textual contradiction. With that logic, Congress couldn't regulate territories on anything that future states might want to decide differently. And if we judge it by originalist reading, it's contradicted by the Founders' own behavior: the Northwest Ordinance, passed in 1787 while the Constitutional Convention was meeting, banned slavery in territories. The First Congress re-enacted it in 1789 under the new Constitution. Same Founders, did exactly what Taney said they intended to forbid.
3. Freeing slaves violates the 5th Amendment property clause. Taney argued the 5th Amendment's protection against deprivation of property without due process meant Congress couldn't ban slavery in territories, since slaves were property. He grounded this in the Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 or better known as the "fugitive slave clause", which he read as recognizing "the right of property of the master in a slave."
First, the textual problems are serious. the 5th Amendment guarantees due process, which is a procedural protection requiring fair process before deprivation, not a substantive ban on deprivation itself. Taney's reading was the first major use of what we would call "substantive due process" to strike down federal legislation (in Taney's case: the Missouri Compromise).
Second, the originalist problems are worse. Tracing the Constitution drafts, one can see how there was a last minute change to the wording merely two days before the signing. The clause acknowledges state-created status, not federally-protected property, and was clearly meant to only imply it was permissible under state laws. It was important to the Founders that the Constitution never uses the word "slave" or "slavery" anywhere in its original text, not once. The Framers went out of their way to avoid it, using circumlocutions like "person held to service or labour," "other persons," and "such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit." The change at the last minute struck the word "legally" from the fugitive slave clause specifically to avoid implying slavery had moral legitimacy under federal law, as Madison's notes from the Convention record him saying it was "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men". The word "slavery" doesn't appear in the Constitution until the 13th Amendment, which abolished it.
Furthermore, going back to the Northwest Ordinance from before, which banned slavery in territories, if the Founders thought slaves were federally-protected property under the 5th Amendment, that ban would have been unconstitutional, and they certainly didn't think it was.
Contemporary Reactions to Dred Scott v Sanford
Some, like let's say Stephen A Douglas, says if the Court decided it, it must be legal:
The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole Republican system of government—a blow, which if successful would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution—the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws.
Lincoln, in his response to the above, quickly pointed out the flaws of the majority opinion, undoubtedly referring to the points made in Curtis's dissent. And how he feels precedents are being overturned by this decision and that the decision on how it came about is just as important as what. Bolded mine:
Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession.
If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the Court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.
Douglas would win against Lincoln for Illinois senate seat in 1858, but Lincoln's position was what propelled him into the national stage.
Final Thoughts
I hope I have demonstrated for you that Dred Scott was not "correctly" decided. It's only correct if one holds the philosophy that whatever the court rules is the law and everyone should just bow to it from then on. I also hope to demonstrate for you that conservative judges, even one who think he is reading the text on its own and interpreting it based on "original intent", can certainly do great twisting and read certain things into the text if they so wish. I also hope to demonstrate for you that judges don't make good historians. This is not considered the worst Supreme Court decision of all time merely because of its moral implications, but also because of how badly the law was decided. There was indecision written into the Constitution, and it was left for the public to continually wrestle about it. And Taney could have written a much narrower decision, but by falling so hard on the side of the conservatives, he contributed to the breakdown of the country, poured oil into the fire of sectional tension, and simply made things worse.
PS:
Like if I am reading a Spanish author and give the book to 10 translators they basically give me the same English text.
Have you read different translations of the same work? Why do you think the Catholic Church throughout its history is adamant that it is the final authority on authorized translations and some regions and rulers at certain times even prohibit "vernacular Bible". One simply has to look at the East-West Schism as to how different understanding of the same word can have wide reaching consequences (see this video for a recap). And then we have the Constitution. Yes, the champion of textual clarity with such phrases such as "cruel and unusual punishments", "general welfare", "unreasonable searches and seizures", "necessary and proper", etc. The ambiguity was by design.
PPS: I highly recommend reading the full linked Robert A Burt writing. The contrast between Dred Scott v Sanford with the more modern Brown v Board of Education is great but I didn't want to make this any longer and I didn't want to deep dive into another case.
PPPS: I should have made this as a top level comment lol
lollol
19d ago
Honestly I think the court is already dead. And it’s not coming back. Might as well admit it’s a Senate and use it to make the world a better place.
I would think that's exactly what the liberals said about Dredd Scott back in the 19th century. And it's true that it took a Civil War to right it. But, I believe people back then also decided that then treating the Court openly like a Senate doesn’t just accept the problem, it accelerates it, turning something imperfect into something fully broken, that's why they didn't just tear it down. My belief is that each pillar of government is a pressure valve. The fact that the Court gets more and more partisan is proof that the other two are in disorder. The American people doesn't elect good lawmakers, so they turn to the presidency for quick executive actions, when that fails, the American people clamor for relief by wanting to stack the court in whatever direction they prefer.
It’s tough to say who broke ranks first. Though most seem to point to the left. It can be noted though the left doesn’t even pretend to follow the law. A “Living” Constitution by definition is not bounding itself by the words that were Democratically passed. The other thing on the right I can think of would be economics and law merging where suddenly judges used economic test. That would probably be more “neoliberal” than “right”, but the right were considered the neoliberals for a while. For who fired first a strong indicator would be the side that is saying they aren’t limiting themselves as the culprits.
I agree with you that "living constitution" is not a good name nor idea for the current US, especially when unlike other countries, the Founders did not conclusively made clear on guidance of how to interpret the Constitution, nor has there been Amendments since to make that democratically clear. I would also like to point out that there are plenty of examples in history where there are things that are Legal, yet does not make it Just, and that tension is exactly why people veer into the extreme of legal cynicism where "might make right". Right now you say that the Liberals overreached because from your perspective the current court, that you agree with, is overturning liberal decisions from the last 80 years and reaching the "correct-er" decision. But around 80 years ago, we would have Brown v. Board of Education overturning the conservative even older Plessy v. Ferguson with regards to "separate but equal". Or maybe we would talk about West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish which gutted the older Lochner v. New York and upheld minimum wage (this would be similar to how we talk about the recent Louisiana v. Callais gutting the VRA). I'm sure for many people, that was also the "correct-er" decision. Even for the Dredd Scott decision, technically that's constitutional, it was just superseded. It would take a full arc of history for us to really see what is the most "correct-est" decision. And unfortunately for us humans, it takes debate, it takes pendulum swings from left to right, back to left, back to right, and so many more turns. The point is we don't want the breakdown of the rule of law. Dredd Scott led to the breakdown of the rule of law as Northern States did not enforce the decision, even though there were many calling for everyone to follow the law, I would guess that both of us agreed with fighting slavery being the morally correct choice. But we celebrate Lincoln because he preserved the constitution and the rule of law. He made sure that the 13th amendment was passed democratically, settling the debate for generations to come. That is virtue, for only when is it costly that a virtue is true. And that's what I'm imploring for all actors in the legal system.
lollol
19d ago
The conservatives haven’t crossed that rubicon. They mostly did things like uphold ObamaCare though they likely had strong legal arguments to axe it if they wanted to. They’ve ditched horizontal precedence which I think is fine for something like Roe where I think most people felt it was a bad ruling. They haven’t gotten rid of Obgerfell which doesn’t appear to have textual support. Largely because it’s popular and the politics bad.
When it comes to partisan results, each side tends to see its own decisions as principled and the other side’s as legislating from the bench, that's the difficulty of separating law from politics, which I posit is unavoidable. The “they defected first” point is not something either side can prove in a neutral way. Each side thinks the other crossed the line first. Once both sides believe that, permanent defection becomes self-justifying and breakdown accelerates.
I’m proposing they should consider adopting theories to make the Court a Senate because that’s what the left has done, but they are no where close to doing that. Robert’s has largely acting as a politician and not an interpreter and he’s acted as a politician in favor of the left.
The left definitely does not have the same perspective as you that "Robert has...acted as a politician in favor of the left".
Also, though I understand that from your perspective of "[once] one side has defected the optimal strategy is also to defect," but if I'm reading game theory on iterated games right, it's better to "cooperate" and decelerate/reverse the breakdown. Or are you arguing that a little "punishment" for the blues need to be done now and then go back to textualism later once the blues rediscover it (in the tit-for-tat strategy)?
A fundamental problem with your “debating” court is even if you say it’s fine provided they remain internal consistency they still get selected thru a political process. Which means they can be selected for the ones that will do policy for what the left wants. Not a big concern now because the left probably won’t get to pick judges for 30 years, but it is a long term problem. Venice had a weird political system where leaders were picked thru multiple rounds of voting that was indirect Democracy of elites. The SC has essentially become that where they get to make policy thru some very indirect Democracy.
That seems like an argument for stronger self-constraint, not weaker. Otherwise you end up with a fully political court selected politically and deciding politically, which is exactly the “Senate with robes” problem, just in your preferred direction. If reds point to Roe, blues would point to Gore v Bush. Hell, if we go back 100 years, liberals would point to Dredd Scott as an example of a conservative court overreaching.
lollol
19d ago
Ok, so I think we can agree on at least some things:
- The ideal perfect state if for law to be like mathematics. Clear, complete, and total.
- Laws are made by human, so some laws, even foundational ones like the Constitution, have gaps for interpretation.
I think we might disagree on (not sure yet because we didn't delve into any specific cases):
- What is the line where "interpretation" goes too far
- Who often does the "interpretation"-too-far
Few want to constrain their own power.
I would commend conservative judges if they actually be the constraining force in the judicial system. But as you've demonstrated, the desire to just get the results you want is really overwhelming.
lollol
20d ago
Not sure what you meant to say here. That "in the matter of law, there is no room for debate" ?
lollol
22d ago
I disagree with your world view and perspective. I regret that I don't have the words to persuade you otherwise. Best of luck to us both.
lollol
24d ago
At this point, you should drop the language about judicial restraint, judicial bias, and respect for the law. Your position from my understanding is: “Blues used the Court as a political weapon, so I want Reds to use it as a political weapon too.” That may be honest, but it is not a rule-of-law position, it's just power politics.
The important distinction is between “this is bad legal theory” vs “legal theory does not matter.” You can think Roe or Obergefell were badly reasoned, yet that doesn't have to lead right away to "judges should openly act like partisan legislators when our side controls the Court". Once you say “we own the Court now,” you have basically accepted the premise that the Court is just another legislature. And if that is true, then you have no principled objection when blue judges do the same thing next time, or when blues try to pack the Court.
Roe is actually a useful example here. Even if it helped liberals for decades, that was, as it turns out, temporary. Roe made the conflict more bitter, less settled, and more legitimacy-destroying. Your version of judicial nihilism would create the same problem in reverse.
So I understand the impulse for revenge, but that is what it is: revenge. It is not really about the Constitution or the rule of law anymore. It is about using the Court as a weapon because you believe the other side did it first. But there will always be people to your left and to your right, and no faction gets to bludgeon everyone else forever because that is not a stable or decent way to run a constitutional system.
lollol
24d ago
Sometimes agreeing with red judges on small issues or non-partisan issues does not mean they are unbiased. You don’t need to make up the law in every case to be a partisan hack.
So because you can't win, and because you feel hurt that "the other guys did it first" (which btw is debatable really) so you want to feel justified loading your own partisan hacks on the court?
This is akin to saying El Chapo is a good guy because he’s a good father.
There are always differences in degrees. And that's just a bad analogy in general. Being a good father is some evidence of being a good guy, but so is being a drug kingpin, but those two things live in different moral categories and can be mutually exclusive. When I say a judge sometimes agrees with the other side, that is not unrelated to the question of judicial bias. It is at least some evidence about how the judge has less or more bias.
If you’re going to accuse me of being biased then atleast show me a case where a conservative judge ruled in a conservative way contra the law? Hopefully they do that partially in the birthright case but I have my doubts.
"Contra the law" is doing a lot of work. It's constitutional law, who would say they are giving an opinion against the law? Again, the one who wins will "defines" what the law means (at least until it's reversed)(and then maybe reversed again). If you take "affirmative action" as your "contra the law", damn liberals are going to cry foul about "Bush v Gore" forever. You get to set the goalpost and choose what's right based on your criteria. That's already legislating from your own personal bench.
I am not going to justify lying. No it is not better when judges lie to the public. If the are acting as Senators I would rather they just say I have power and I’m fucking you than claim some moral high ground that they wrote a 100 page essay to say their not fucking me.
Look man, the liberals can just say the same thing about you in reversed. From my perspective, the red judges are lying about "originalism" and "textualism" anyway. And certainly from the perspective of the blues, the red judges are also claiming "some moral high ground that they wrote a 100 page essay to say their not fucking [the blues]". Your accusation of interpretive word games flow both ways. Make the law and constitution less ambiguous and justices won't be able to interpret their way out of ambiguities.
I respect the judge who said the first amendment doesn’t apply in her courtroom. Pure I have power. I get to choose the rules. I don’t give a shit about the constitution and you’re going to jail. It’s honest. No 100 page opinion why she’s doing good work. Just pure it’s the state of NY and I win and you lose here.
Ok, I see, so you're more angry at what you call "lying". You rather have people give it to you in simple terms you understand "I like this so I rule in its favor, I don't like this so I rule against its favor".
I will now step back from my motte of "I really would rather people bother to lie than to not lie at all" because that was bad on my part to lead down this confusing conversation. I will step back to the bailey of "enough people believe in a lie then it becomes truth (and maybe even law)". You can load all the partisan hacks you want to get the short term rulings you want, but you definitely won't win the hearts and minds of people long term. And they will get their freedom and powers back at some point, and then what you achieved will be gone as well. And thankfully within the system of the US, this means the pendulum swings faster.
And look, what I said above stands for the blues too you know. I'm sure from your perspective the partisan hacks of the blues made plenty of short term disastrous rulings that need reversed.
The real hard work is to make laws that more and more agree with and unambiguous for judges to rule with, which means debate, which means opinions, which mean rulings that get reversed. Wow life is messy, who knew.
lollol
24d ago
First. Your side doesn’t even pretend they are NOT legislating from the bench. It’s why they use terms like “Living Constitution” or nominate a wise Latina. They aren’t even pretending that they are not legislating from the bench.
They clearly do at least lie and try to stay consistent and adhere to the text. Kagan famously says "We are all originalists now". Sotomayor has a longer track record of being further left of the court's median center so I take her as an example, but even for her sometimes there are weird results like Michigan v. Bryant or Sykes v. United States or Gamble v. United States or Snyder v. Phelps, etc. (As an aside, found that Ginsburg and Scalia likes to dissent these cases, not together, but both would dissent). Cases like these are especially what I mean when Justices' jurisprudence can and sometimes bring them to weird places as long as they're consistent in their theories. I'm going to hedge here that I'm at best an amateur reader of the law but when a liberal justice joins the like of Alito or Thomas, that should be signal that blue judges are less hacks than you think they are.
Whether the right has legislated from the bench I can only think of times when the legislated in the lefts direction like Sandra OCconnor supporting affirmative action as a temporary measure for 20 years despite being unconstitutional.
When red judges reach blue outcomes you count as legislating for the left. When blue judges reach blue outcomes, you count as "legislating from the bench". When blue judges reach red outcomes (like I pointed out above) you consider that "applying the law". When red judges reach red outcomes you also consider that "applying the law". You've essentially already categorized the things you agree with as right and the things you don't as wrong.
Just like the blue extremists you rail so hard against, since you both didn't write better laws that twists and ties the hands of judges into making clear verdicts, you both now focus on stacking the deck and just get to the win without having to go through the hard problem of doing the actual persuading and uniting and legislating.
I don’t believe in lying. It’s a cancer. Exception being for politeness telling your aunt she looks good.
Well yes, I was just pointing out the difference when people, of any stripes, don't even bother to lie vs when they still do. Of course then there is the difference between bother to lie vs believing the lie. Then there is the difference between a lie and a truth. There is a whole spectrum of reality there.
lollol
25d ago
I'm not sure, blacks are more religious, more anti-LGBT, there is certainly a strong foundation in which they could be the core of the right. Anyway, what @Skibboleth was saying is to explain why black people moves more generally as a voting bloc instead of splintering.
lollol
25d ago
And going back to my hometown, if you were caught by a neighbor using EBT you'd be socially ostracized, the rare section 8 housing person would not be invited to block parties.
Maybe I am dumb, so these people are on SNAP or something and they're poor so it's automatically assumed they are leeches on society and must be shun?
lollol
25d ago
Just as you can come up with countless sources and examples where the people you would call living constitutionalism adherents twist and interpret the law that besmirch their professed theory, I think I can also find countless sources and examples where the people I would call originalist adherents twist and interpret the law that besmirch their professed theory. I'm not sure why you think your side are "guardians of constraint and defenders against legislating from the bench" and that somehow my side "shot first" and therefore you feel justified in throwing the rules of the game. Don't use us as an excuse.
From my perspective, as society polarizes, the rules breakdown. Both sides feel bitter from transgressions of the others and whole swathes of people like you want to just flip the game and start with something new. What I worry about is that in the zeal and rush of grabbing power, boots are pressed on human faces. The real hard work, and real peaceful solution, is to still be at the table and keep debating and arguing.
Anyway, on the other hand, obviously you're right. The Supreme Court has always been just a different level of political voting. In a way, the makeup of the court represents what the people must have wanted at some point, just several time removes. To me that's fine, they are the best society could agree with at that particular moment in time. And hopefully they are good jurists who can guide and constrain government from overstepping.
And look, I'm not even saying originalism is wrong. From my perspective, assuming democracy survives, if all judges are always all originalists and they are actually adhering to straight and narrow originalism, guess what, the people would organize and vote and make sure laws are written in such a way that originalists can't refute the intention of the laws. Or yes, in the current system, they vote in legislators who would not appoint originalist judges. And the pendulum swings and it goes on and on.
I can even tell you a bad example on my side of the above. Look at this quote by a recent case in NYC "I believe the facts in front of me shows that this defendant poses a significant danger to society,’ said Judge Indira Khan. ‘I am very appalled by the alleged nature of this case and the potential for greater harm, however my hands are tied.’ . Notice how the judge hands are tied? Now one could say maybe she didn't try hard enough, afterall she is a Dem judge in a very blue city, but I am choosing to believe her at her words instead of thinking she just lies.
If neither side is constrained by text then we have created a Senate and not a Supreme Court.
For what its worth, I really would rather people bother to lie than to not lie at all. That would be a real breakdown of shame, a real arrogance of the dominant. "They don't even bother to lie badly anymore". At that point what would the minority do?
lollol
25d ago
Right, but it's more interesting to hear about someone saying judges should uphold a law in favor of slavery. That's judicial consistency.
lollol
25d ago
I am very clearly if a country Democratically enacts slavery judges 100% have to enforce it. That’s how a constitutional republic works. You seem to disagree with this.
I am not happy about the slavery for sure, but I am happy you are consistent. I was just confused because you said you don't want a perfect system but then call for judges to be automaton adhering to the text. I call the system you want "perfect" because that system has no loopholes nor room for mercy or second-chances. It is like the crude simple software, if there are bugs, the only way is to patch it. But clearly the legal system, and especially the case in complex software, has fallback for the human, the messy, the dirty "interpretive" stuff. Even in sentencing guidelines there are minimums and there are maximums. That's why there is jury and jury nullification. Of course when it comes to the Supreme Court where the hardest of cases land, there will be more "judgment" to be made.
They don’t get to make law. They need to uphold the law as written.
That I agree with you, legislating from the bench is not a good idea for it undermines the power and trust in the judiciary of the people. The thing is even defining what is legislating from the bench gets a debate. Unless you're just going to propose might make right again.
This is why I no longer give a shit about legal opinions. You vote for judges that do what you want them to do and I want judges appointed that do what I want them to do. Judges are not the State. ... My point here though when the top law schools have 10 different legal theories the system basically became figure out the result you want and then pick the theory that says your allowed to do that.
Well that's different. I respect judges who are consistent in their judiciary theory. I also respect consistent change in judiciary theory. Sometimes the theories would come to surprising results independent of political opinions or preferences. It's why we celebrate cases like when John Adams defend the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. I don't like judges who are inconsistent and flip-flop theories or twist their philosophy to get the desired results. And I think that's the crux between me and you. You are very clear about getting the results you want, while I do believe in having judges with independent and clear legal principles.
I assume you’re a Dem because West Wing is coded Dem.
We have wild political allegiances in this place. Who knows really :D.
In the old days the Dems did what I am describing. Figure out what you want like a right to abortion or gay marriage and then pick the theory to use. Now they had smart people who wrote well but it was really bullshit. Now we’ve downgraded to not even pretending anymore. Just put the wise Latina on the court who doesn’t need to follow the law because she’s like wise or empathetic or something. Just give me based judges when the GOP appoints someone now that will do what we want.
The system is the same. Law is just politics and has been least since FDR. The general public doesn’t read the arguments anyway. If I want to bang birthright citizenship it doesn’t matter to me if we have some smart guy who digs up transcripts from the 1860’s to justify the position or some 90 IQ 25 year old whose opinion is nothing more than I don’t like Mexicans.
This is just another form of the Israel/Palestinian debate where both sides just point at each other and say "you guys started it". For me, what you're proposing is just might make right. And look, I think you do have a formal legal theory you ascribe to, sounds to me like what Gorsuch has which is originalism when it comes to constitutional intepretation and textualism when it comes to statutory and regulatory matters. That I can respect as long as that matter is consistent. At the very least, this does mean that judges can rule in surprising ways.
And actually by this point, I think we have almost the same position and let me state it out to see what we overlap vs what we disagree on:
- We both prefer judges who are consistent in their application of the law.
- You prefer originalism/textualism, I prefer that judges should be consistent in whatever professed judicial formal theory they have.
- I think we both agree that the current crop of Justices are closer to "hacks coming to conclusions first and then twisting theories to fit what they want to write" than we would like.
- You are right, I am not a Republican supporter. And I think we would disagree with each other on whether the Blue Justices are more hacks than Red Justices.
- You have become disappointed and cynical and therefore now only care about the results. I make a distinction that I do think legal formalism is still important and we should get back to it where we can.
it doesn’t matter to me if we have some smart guy who digs up transcripts from the 1860’s to justify the position or some 90 IQ 25 year old whose opinion is nothing more than I don’t like Mexicans.
It matters because when the pendulum inevitably swings, we want good laws to be written on good arguments that most would agree with.
Certainly the people who support the judiciary branch hates this kind of corruption. When both Democrats and Republicans are unpopular due to transgressions like this (no matter that Obama did X and then Trump did X^2), then the time is ripe for a third party. Unfortunately I think US will be held back by first-past-the-vote again.
More options
Context Copy link