Skip to main content
Topic: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Read 2186 times)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #25
As an aside, the provision on sex might not even have made it in there if a racist hadn't been concerned that white women might have fewer rights than black men and women.
The only speculation I've read about that is that it was proposed as a so-called poison pill - an amendment designed to make the law less likely to be enacted... (Not an unusual legislative tactic!)

I reject the contention of obscurity in language usage that makes personal interpretation the standard: that's no standard at all. And were it so, communication would be impossible. Translation from one language to another is more likely to be idiosyncratic. But among native speakers the Humpty Dumpty/Alice exchange in Through the Looking Glass doesn't seem profound but only silly.
That mores have changed in the 50-some-odd years since the law's passage, there's little doubt. That the usage originally encompassed and logically contains our modern peccadillos seems more than far-fetched: It seems perverse...
(It's that very perversity that makes the exchange so entertaining!)

Still, ersi is correct about the historical causes that bring us to this point.

Let's back up a bit:
As Gorsuch writes, what matters is that the discriminators would not make this decision but for sex. That's what's in the text of the law. There's a pretense by Alito and Thomas that Gorsuch changed the meaning of sex, which he clearly did not, and that you can discriminate on gender without targeting sex, which doesn't make a lick of sense. (emphasis added)
But as ersi points out,

The funny thing is of course that pedophilia and what not are also sexual orientations (how would you argue that they are not?), so does it really serve a sensible purpose to explicitly normalise any and all sexual orientations?
Further:
ersi said on 2022-01-06, 00:56:29: "As to 'interpreting' that Oakdale has an issue with, it so happens that whenever you read a text, you are interpreting it. Inevitably. It is impossible to not interpret."

It's quite literally the job of the courts to interpret the law. That's what they're there for. Otherwise they'd serve no purpose.
In the American system the purpose of the higher courts is to resolve conflicts and controversies. As Gorsuch did with "but for sex" many attempt to do with "interpret"... ersi correctly shows that Gorsuch abrogates the Absurdity Doctrine.

In other words, Humpty Dumpty is headed for a great fall! And all the king's horses and all the king's men will be unable to put him back together again...

There's a pretense by Alito and Thomas that Gorsuch changed the meaning of sex, which he clearly did not, and that you can discriminate on gender without targeting sex, which doesn't make a lick of sense.
You mean you reject their interpretation? Pray tell: What privileges your interpretation? Word games can only get you so far... :)
And "gender" is, the way you use it, a quite modern term.. Time was, it was but a grammatical category...
When the statute in question uses language easily understood on the basis of documented common usage and supported by contemporaneous reference works, what justifies the "new" interpretation?
What you call a "pretense" is merely an unpretentious reading of original text, eschewing flights of fancy.

It's telling that you'd rehash your example of the law against kidnapping from the 1600s to the 1900s:
How do you justify making the means of transport a "but-for"  element of the crime? (Remind me, please...)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #26
Oakdale, the problem is far beyond the interpretation of the word "sex". Luckily for Title VII, it specifies "in the workplace", so everything outside the workplace should be a non-issue.

In the workplace, as far as my experience goes (admittedly limited experience, as I have been a white-collar office employee all this century), sexual orientation does not even come up, so this kind of anti-discrimination law is futile. It's rather the other way - as soon as sexual orientation does come up, as in some colleagues display their orientation so that it affects the work environment, somebody is sure to get fired, i.e. absolutely discriminated against. Simply, there's no room for any sexual orientation whatsoever in the workplace.

For the sake of workplace, the law should better postulate something relevant to workplace, such as equal pay for the same tasks/position/title. But for some idiotic reason this point, even though at the forefront in real-life work environment, is left to "free market".

The law is messed up on this point, not on the word level, but on the section level or even on the principle level. Those whose job is to apply/interpret the law as written are f'd, fairly literally. Some judges try their best to not be ridiculous. The majority try their usual veiling of ulterior motives. None of them will admit the law is letting them down.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #27
The list is bad form for rights that everyone should have. The list would be a better form for necessary distinctions to be made, but the point of this law is "don't discriminate", instead of "do differentiate". Normally such laws employ an exception list instead, e.g "everybody is equal, except high state officials have privilege, legal might has superiority and bigger capital has priority." I.e.a negative list, not a positive list.

The Dutch constitution phrases it as follows in article 1:
Quote
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the
grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be
permitted.
Except when limited by law, if there is a proper justification for restricting it, as tested by the court. Ultimately that's the High Council if it makes it that far, or in arguably better English the Supreme Court.

I reject the contention of obscurity in language usage that makes personal interpretation the standard: that's no standard at all.
There is no obscurity. There is just thinking it through logically. Why are you discriminating against a crossdresser? Because they're wearing a dress or short hair. Would you discriminate against a woman wearing a dress? No? Then you're discriminating against the man wearing the dress based on their sex. You can't fit a pin between it. There is no question regarding the definition of sex here. There would be no discrimination but for sex. If you don't like it, blame the text of the law. It could've easily said something else, as I just quoted Gorsuch clearly explaining above.

But as ersi points out,
There would be no reason to be opposed to pedophilia if children could act as consenting adults. But that's neither here nor there. Legally speaking I doubt you could generally discriminate against someone just for having a sexual preference for children. Plainly put, if you see an attractive woman, do you proceed to rape her or do you just think to yourself it's an attractive woman? Unless the word pedophile here is intended to mean something like rapist or (child) abuser it is in fact more or less a sexual orientation, although I think handicap would be a better word than sexual orientation, particularly legally speaking. I.e., for a forklift driver the handicap of being a pedophile doesn't matter but for an elementary school teacher one imagines it does.

What privileges your interpretation?
Surely you have no less a problem rejecting my interpretation than I have rejecting yours. :) But I am dismayed that someone of your intelligence can read what Gorsuch wrote as well as what Alito wrote and not see that Alito is at best pretending Gorsuch didn't already more than disprove all his arguments with ample examples and precedents. There are no "word games" here, only proper applied philosophy based on the plain meaning of words.

A convincing objection to a proper principled textualist interpretation as per Gorsuch would be how @ersi once showed that I took Scalia too much at his word regarding the texts from the 18th century with regard to the Second Amendment. (I.e., that a well-regulated militia only ever meant something like the National Guard and that pretty much all 20th century SCOTUS decisions are a muddled mess.)

When the statute in question uses language easily understood on the basis of documented common usage and supported by contemporaneous reference works, what justifies the "new" interpretation?
This is the entire point. Gorsuch uses the ordinary meaning of sex and establishes how the ordinary meaning of sex entails discrimination based on sexual interest and outward appearance ("gender"). That is because but for sex, those behaviors aren't being targeted. A man interested in having sex with a woman isn't being targeted. A woman interested in having sex with a woman is. A woman wearing a dress isn't being targeted, but a man wearing a dress is. The behavior is identical, but for sex.

It's telling that you'd rehash your example of the law against kidnapping from the 1600s to the 1900s:
How do you justify making the means of transport a "but-for"  element of the crime? (Remind me, please...)
The point is that it doesn't matter whether anyone envisioned that men might want to wear dresses just the same as it doesn't matter whether anyone envisioned that people might be kidnapped in dirigibles. You can't point at an analogy and say that, aha, it doesn't apply outside of its constraints.

But that's just a generic remark. For kidnapping, it doesn't matter what you do but for transporting someone against their will. It doesn't matter if you're taking them in a suitcase where they can barely breathe or if you're kidnapping them in a dirigible of utmost luxury. Taking someone in a dirigible would be awesome but for the fact that you're doing it against their will. That's what makes it kidnapping, not the fact that you're being confined in uncomfortable circumstances.

Oakdale, the problem is far beyond the interpretation of the word "sex". Luckily for Title VII, it specifies "in the workplace", so everything outside the workplace should be a non-issue.
Only a limited number of workplaces too (i.e., certain industries, companies with more than 15 employees, and so on).

The law is messed up on this point, not on the word level, but on the section level or even on the principle level. Those whose job is to apply/interpret the law as written are f'd, fairly literally. Some judges try their best to not be ridiculous. The majority try their usual veiling of ulterior motives. None of them will admit the law is letting them down.
:up:

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #28
Sort of a brief respite — following our long pause and before we resume:
Quote
DC Diary
By Oliver Wiseman

Judge Jackson’s patriotic rebuke to the left

As confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson enter their third day, coverage has focused more on the questions she has been asked than the answers she has given. Whether it’s Josh Hawley’s scrutiny of Jackson’s sentencing for sex offenders or Ted Cruz quizzing her on Critical Race Theory, the most bad-blooded argument over this week’s Senate drama has concerned the legitimate parameters of these presidential hopefuls’ questioning.

To bypass that mostly unedifying debate, and instead to focus on Jackson’s answers, has been a heartening experience. Ever since she was introduced by Biden at the White House last month, Jackson has seemed a reassuringly earnest, patriotic and accomplished figure. And in her prepared statements, both at the White House and on the Hill, Jackson has painted a picture of America, its legal traditions, and her family story that are noticeably out of step with the contemporary left.

“The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known,” said Jackson when she spoke at the White House. It was the start of a quietly subversive trend.

After adding to a short list of her remarkably American opinions  the amazing 'There was even something for the originalists in Jackson’s answers. “I do not believe that there is such a thing as a living constitution,” she said yesterday.' Wiseman concludes with:
Quote
The course Jackson has charted since her introduction on the biggest stage in American political life is lost in both the overblown attempts by Republicans to paint Jackson as a CRT-toting radical and the left’s uncritical “yasss-queen” embrace of a new celebrity-public figure. But the contrast between Jackson and the prevailing mood in the party of the president who nominated her matters. Contrast Jackson’s remarks with, for example, Biden’s glib comments about “Jim Crow on steroids.” That tells you all you need to know — about both a cynical president and the woman set to be America’s newest Supreme Court justice.
A wise man, indeed!

I'm watching Brown Jackson's Senate hearing now... She's not a Justice I'd choose, even from the administration's short list. (That would be "Leondra Kruger, 45, a California supreme court judge since 2015 who would be the first person in more than 40 years to move from a state court to the supreme court if she were to be confirmed.") But I can't see this nomination failing to replace Justice Stephen Breyer.
I'd have to vote for her, myself, since the vote is up-or-down! (No à la carte.) :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #29
While I appreciate the thought, it would be wiser to quote a tad more selectively lest The Spectator is unhappy about their copyright being violated.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #30
Shall I edit it? (I am a subscriber, both digital and print...) Whatever you think best, Oh Noble Administrator! I just thought the piece too good not to share, all around my admittedly limited Serious Conversation's ambit.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #31
Exxon did research on the environmental effects of its own industry. Deny that.

Pollution (of the environment) was always the more appropriate factor to account for in economics and law. But instead they call it "climate change" to make it intractable, because this helps escape accountability.

Exxon is not being unfairly persecuted. They knew the costs they incurred on society while making profits to themselves. Instead, they are being unfairly acquitted, because the law is clear about profits, but very unclear about social and environmental costs, i.e. the law is unfair.

Such law be damned. I side with environment any day over stupid laws.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #32
Whatever you think best
It feels fine to me on a visceral level, not dissimilar to if you handed me the newspaper section or if you had read it to me aloud. But yes, please edit it a bit to prevent potential issues along those lines.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #33
(Wrong thread, ersi... But: Close Enough for government work, eh? Partisanship, partisanship all the way down! Right? :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #34
Quote
DC Diary
By Oliver Wiseman

[...]

To bypass that mostly unedifying debate, [...]
I took a look at the hearings and, oh boy, I see why one would like to hush up what went on there. Senator Cornyn (R - Texas) showed deep concerns over that Jackson had represented terrorists as an attorney (so, Cornyn thinks there are people who deserve no representation in court of law) and made decisions against Republicans as a judge (so, court decisions are to be assessed primarily on partisan basis, according to him). Senator Graham (R - South Carolina) straightforwardly put Jackson to the religious test - and got the correct answer that religious tests are not allowed.[1]

I'm not even going to talk about Ted Cruz and the like, on whom there is almost bipartisan agreement that they are idiots. The point is, those who were in the position of judging the qualifications of Jackson, demonstrated themselves supremely unqualified.

(Wrong thread, ersi... But: Close Enough for government work, eh? Partisanship, partisanship all the way down! Right? :) )
Yeah, climate is partisan for you. You have nothing relevant to say about climate in any thread.
Now, I wish this would work in real-life job interviews, i.e. when I get an illegal question, I could point out that it's an illegal question. Unfortunately, yeah...

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #35
You have nothing relevant to say about climate in any thread.
Of course you feel that way! Following the topic via the various resources available on the net since AR 3 isn't much to go on, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge and experience? :)
But of course I admit to being a (somewhat) layman luke-warmer. My four go-to blogs are McIntire's Climate Audit, Brigg's eponymous STATISTICIAN TO THE STARS! (now called) Science Is Not the Answer (on substack), Schmidt's Real Climate, and Curry's Climate, etc. Others are usually mentioned in them, so those usually suffice. Oh, and of course Luboš Motl's blog The Reference Frame! (His posts are always fun to read!)
And I've read most of the ARs...

@ersi: From whence comes your expertise? (And smug attitude? :) Are you just naturally disagreeable?)

Yes, I'm wemdog my way back to the thread's topic... :) All in good time!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #36
I’m looking forward to Justice Clarence Thomas’ resignation (if he truly believes in the “integrity” of the SCOTUS), owing to his wife’s attempted meddling in the January 6 GOP insurrection and his subsequent lone vote to withhold documents from that treasonous day from the Right.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/25/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-faces-calls-for-hearings-recusal-resignation-for-wifes-texts-about-2020-election/amp/

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #37
Don't hold your breath, Colonel!
Quote
More than 30 advocacy organizations—including MoveOn, the American Federation of Teachers and Indivisible—sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee Friday calling for it to “immediately” hold a hearing on imposing a code of ethics for the Supreme Court in light of Ginni Thomas’ text messages, as justices aren’t bound to follow the one in place for lower federal judges.

Pointing to both Thomas and his wife as well as other justices’ conduct, the groups said the lack of a code of ethics for justices is a “major concern for the country,” and called for lawmakers “to rein in a Supreme Court that has utterly failed to police the conduct of its own members.”
(from the Forbes article you linked to, Colonel...)
The lack of a code of ethics for justices is a major concern for the country...? This is laughable.
I wonder why none of these "groups" had worries about, say, Justice Ginsburg's political activities... :)

I find it especially touching, that Thomas is essentially being called on the carpet, for not keeping the little lady under control!

The Democratic Party seems hell-bent on abandoning their (supposed) commitment to Women's Liberation! To me, it looks like they can't even acknowledge women as a class... Perhaps someone can explain the logic of their positions to me? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #38
I am dismayed that someone [...] can read what Gorsuch wrote as well as what Alito wrote and not see that Alito is at best pretending Gorsuch didn't already more than disprove all his arguments with ample examples and precedents. There are no "word games" here, only proper applied philosophy based on the plain meaning of words.
Judge Jackson, when asked a simple question by Sen. Blackburn, best re-opens this topic, I think.
The Judge claimed she couldn't define "woman" — not being a biologist! :) (Of course, even that answer will prove problematical for her...having all but admitted, indeed, that biology is what should determine the answer: An adult female.) Why would she have such difficulty? For the same reason that Gorsuch's opinion amounts to the following formulation:

As Alito documented, multiple Congresses have rejected amending (updating, of course...) Title VII to include sexual preference and sexual orientation (gender expression)...
But by torturing the language the desired result is achieved!
His but-for analysis is a way of saying "You silly legislators left a logical loop-hole! So there, take that!"

So much for the notional presumption that legislatures legislate...

One could  argue that Judge Jackson shouldn't opine on the weighty question "What is a woman?" since this has yet to be authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court — a matter sure to resurface in subsequent sessions. One could also call her reticence too cute by half! :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #39
As Alito documented, multiple Congresses have rejected amending (updating, of course...) Title VII to include sexual preference and sexual orientation (gender expression)...
There is only a reason to do such a thing when there is doubt. There is none.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #40
@OakdaleFTL

What do you think about Eastman memos? Is it a legitimate interpretation of Amendment 12 that the vice president can decide which electoral college votes to count and which ones not?

...the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted...

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #41
There is only a reason to do such a thing when there is doubt.
You take the Titles to be generic and blanket bans on discrimination, I presume? :) That's not the case.

that the vice president can decide which electoral college votes to count and which ones not?
This trope is not tenable. There are procedures and means to challenge slates and individual electors, but they're not within the purview of the Vice President — even when acting as the President of the Senate.
(Don't be surprised, ersi: I'm often at odds with academic lawyers; you'd be amazed at some of the tripe law professors come up with! :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #42
(Don't be surprised, ersi: I'm often at odds with academic lawyers; you'd be amazed at some of the tripe law professors come up with! :) )
He didn't simply come up with it. He served as Trump's tool.

Here's some critique of the Eastman memos. Followed by a response from Eastman. Decent-sized essays.

The points of the critique (my own summary, rushed, missing some points and nuance probably):
- There are two memos. The shorter one (two pages), which came to light first, is called "a preliminary, incomplete draft" by Eastman and "bowdlerized by the media" by his defenders. But it is not a draft nor is it altered by the media. Rather, it was released in full by the media, the contents of the shorter memo is in line with the longer memo (six pages), and the memos do not bear any sign of being a draft, being labeled "privileged and confidential" instead.
- The memos state that seven states transmitted dual slates of electors to Congress. In reality, each state transmitted just one set of certified electoral votes. Any possibly competing alternate slates were uncertified by the authorities of the states.
- The memos quote 12th Amendment of the Constitution, "...the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted..." and interpret the "...the votes shall then be counted..." part as that the President of the Senate (i.e. then-active Vice President) has the sole power to do the counting - more crucially, VP would be able to decide which votes to consider as properly certified and which to discard, and the Congress would be unable to legally intervene.
- The memos also cite "legal authority and historical precedent" to the effect that when there is a dispute about electoral votes, the Constitution makes the VP the ultimate arbiter. However, while there indeed is some legal opinion to this effect, it is a minority opinion. Importantly there is the Electoral Count Act where VP cannot behave like the ultimate arbiter without interference (according to the minority opinion the Electoral Count Act is deemed unconstitutional and should be ignored, even though the Electoral Count Act is a long-standing normal practice by now) None of the cited historical precedents are really about disputed electoral votes. None of them overturned voting results.
- The memos propose that Mike Pence declare that there are competing slates of votes and they cannot be counted at this time. Various scenarios follow, which is the main contents of the memos. The scenarios are from most brazen - that Pence and Trump control the entire course of events henceforth - to investigations by Congress, courts, state and federal agencies with different results, in one case finding no irregularities and thus Biden winning, in other cases finding enough irregularities/challenges/fraud so that Trump remains in power. The problem is that the scenarios rely heavily on presupposing the mentioned constitutional interpretation and on ignoring the Electoral Count Act. Assuming that this can be done, the memos would provide an equally plausible road map for Kamala Harris in next elections and could have been that for Al Gore in 2000.

Eastman responds to each point in the article linked to above, except to the last point as far as I can see. However, in this podcast interview, he says that his ultimate advice to Mike Pence was something like, "My interpretation (of the 12th Amendment and EVA) is an open question, but it is the weaker argument. It would be foolish to follow it under these circumstances."

I don't believe that that's exactly what Eastman said to Pence. This way he would have been useless for Trump and he would not have been there.

@ersi: From whence comes your expertise? (And smug attitude? :) Are you just naturally disagreeable?)
I am making a great career out of my expertise - outside the academic field that I had trained for and hoped would become my career.

But what's your expertise? On this forum, you are headstrong in entrenched partisanship. The sole topic that can be evidently discussed with you is US constitutional law. Just that - not political events, not history, just the points of law and court decisions. This is way too narrow.

On all other topic, such as economy, social issues, environment, etc. you are only able to discuss them as if they were legal or partisan issues. Guess what, they are not. Ontologically. You little care about ontology.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #43
You little care about ontology.
:) As a parlor game — yes, that's true. Are you familiar with José Ortega y Gasset?
(Your presumptions about my views are -should I say- peculiar? :) )

I am making a great career out of my expertise - outside the academic field that I had trained for and hoped would become my career.
Glad to hear it, and I hope you enjoy your work! (Really.) But I can't help but ask, weren't you previously some sort of cross between a propagandist and an advertising consultant? :)

I have no interest in defending or praising or indicting or defaming Eastman... (I'm sure —perhaps I even remember?— we'd disagree about how the 2000 presidential election was decided; but that's history that I don't believe you're capable of understanding.) Eastman broke no laws, and I don't -nor have I ever- agreed with him on the VP's role, even theoretically.
Suffice it to say, I don't really do gossip-y stuff. You'll forgive me my sensibilities? (I'm considerably older than you, which should count for something? :) Or must one have credentials to merit your seriousness?)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #44
I hope you enjoy your work! (Really.)
Currently making an awesome career at a bank. Now I finally need to learn Excel to move up the ladder. It turns out I hate Excel more than I thought I would.

But I can't help but ask, weren't you previously some sort of cross between a propagandist and a advertising consultant? :)
In my jobs I have always been a back-office data-entry or data-processing clerk type, not a public figure, never too much customer/client contact, and lately no necessary contact with anybody at all, colleagues or bosses or whoever. And that's the good aspect of my jobs.

Eastman broke no laws,...
As the events ended up, this is correct. Pence saved him. But Eastman advised Trump in a certain way that, if the advice were to be followed, it would have been complicity in crimes of the highest order.

Trump belonged to prison already in the 80's, in my not so humble opinion. For his casino business and parties with Epstein at Mar-a-Lago. By now his list of crimes is so long and grave that one can judge the merits of US legal system based on the fact that Trump has remained unconvicted to this day. Edit: Oh, right, he ended up the president of the country instead. God bless America!

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #45
The sole topic that can be evidently discussed with you is US constitutional law. Just that - not political events, not history, just the points of law and court decisions. This is way too narrow.
My interests are considerably broader — but few of them lend themselves to forum discussions. Music, painting, photography, poetry, writing; logic, science, psychology, philosophy; nature, nurture and puzzles and games...
Do these sound like grist for our mill, here? :)

And despite (or perhaps because of?) the many years I lost to alcoholism, I most comfortably revert to my earliest career: Gadfly.

'Nuff said? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #46
You take the Titles to be generic and blanket bans on discrimination, I presume?  :)  That's not the case.
Again, read Gorsuch. His textualism is the only tenable position, and the US Supreme Court is almost always textualist as well. Unintended consequences of a law are valid as per the US Supreme Court over and over and over again, and if that weren't the case they wouldn't be worth paying any attention to. It looks an awful lot like Thomas' supposed originalism comes and goes with the wind, and that he's a perfectly good textualist when it happens to support his position. The original intent of whoever wrote the law is always with an eye on how a textualist court necessarily will interpret it.

Originalism is the personal interpretation you claim to oppose, while textualism preserves the original intent of the language of the law. Emphasis on language, the only tenable approach, free from armchair psychologymind reading. The framers write laws from this point of view, and they don't spell out details as to what they think the consequences may or may not be because that would be unenforceable madness with a capricious sieve of a legal system. Put another way, it would seem that in your opinion @ersi is correct or should be correct in stating that it is and has been in such a sad state of affairs for a long time. No regular citizen could ever know the law because the words are meaningless without random mind-readings from the US Seance Court.

Thankfully Gorsuch clearly shows this is not the case.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #47
Again, read Gorsuch Alito. His textualism is the only tenable position, and the US Supreme Court is almost always textualist
I'd call it (Gorsuch's opinion) an example of hyper-textualism... But you'd contend that the most a Justice can wring out of the language is what should apply?
I still think you're confusing common law with statutory and constitutional law.
they don't spell out details as to what they think the consequences may or may not be because that would be unenforceable madness with a capricious sieve of a legal system
Yet when an opinion is demonstrably contrary to the law as applied over decades, invoking readings of the text repeatedly rejected by multiple Congresses, and entailing a plethora of (Unanticipated?) consequences — such that, were the same procedure frequently used, there'd only be SCOTUS opinions to go by!
And the make-up of that court would be the most consequential of "political" questions... A circumstance to be diligently opposed and avoided!

And yet some feel we've already lost that battle, lip-service to the contrary...

Remember: It wasn't so long ago that the Absurdity Doctrine was "routinely" used to interpret legal text? :)

I'm afraid I can't be perfectly logically consistent in my views; and I sincerely doubt anyone else can be, either. One of the attributes a Justice should keep on the lookout for is hubris...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #48
Trump belonged to prison already in the 80's, in my not so humble opinion. [...] By now his list of crimes is so long and grave that one can judge the merits of US legal system based on the fact that Trump has remained unconvicted to this day.
Have you never sat on a jury? It's both humbling and onerous! I'm often amazed and amused by how easily most folk take to a seat of judgement... I've found it less than comfortable.
But to each his own, eh? :) That is to say: as long as people don't take the law into their own hands, deciding to be judge and jury, they're entitled to their opinions. Sentencing and punishment happen -or don't- in the real world.

Yikes! It's been a good many years since you've "shared" such personal views with me...
I don't suppose an interlude of chat will detract from this thread!

Sorry for the confused order my recent posts: My stable install of the latest Vivaldi hung... As I watched the spinning beachball, I saw each browser I'd had open stop responding. Except the snapshot Vivaldi... But by then the temp around my machine's processor was near 150º F and climbing. I thought I'd wait it out and put the beast to sleep.
It looked once like the system was going to crash, but faith is sometime rewarded: No re-start; no browser crash, no data lost!

What you describe as your ideal work environment, ersi, would drive me nuts! Perhaps because of my early experiences as a nightclub musician, I've always liked hubbubs and small crowds. I like (well, I did; I'm retired now) the unexpected, problems and challenges... And when things were under nominal control I'd found that there are few "jobs" that I couldn't do while carrying on a conversation.
People fascinate me, and I like being around them! (I've quipped, "Not surprising, that: I was raised by people!")

I get the data entry part; it's like playing an instrument, sight-reading. After a stint as a "supervisory" data entry clerk for the 1990 Census (supervisory,[1] because we had some people who were easily confused by the software we used, and I'd help anyone nearby who got stuck...), and soon thereafter helped the local medical insurance processing group cover during a major migration to a new suite of software... (Remember H. Ross Perot? With his wife's money he bought and expanded the company to do that sort of thing via terminals; he eventually sold it to General Motors, making himself a multi-millionaire. Shrewd strange little man!! But he gave the country — Bill Clinton; no great loss, since GHW Bush was never a Reaganite. Well, that same company was handling Blue Shield's document processing... I felt right at home on their smart terminal.) But there production was what mattered most. 50+ data entry clerks each with their own HCPCS manual covering much of their desks. Not much social interaction!

But my next gig was as a process server. :) That was a lot of fun! (Mostly.)
This was were my post sat, while I waited to see what would happen...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #49
I'd call it (Gorsuch's opinion) an example of hyper-textualism... But you'd contend that the most a Justice can wring out of the language is what should apply?
You phrase that as if it were an absurdity, while failing to consider the alternative: that otherwise a justice would be arbitrarily making things up. Yes, a bad ruling is preferable over a Bad ruling. Therefore this should indeed be the limit.