U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends

[Jace, Extat]

53 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not going to start assuming anyone in any profession is “bad” because they took up that profession.  I’m not going to assume the worst until proven wrong.  I refuse to do that.

I assume anyone who makes more than me is automatically guilty of something. It doesn't make me just, but it does make me feel better about myself. And positivity is key. 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

OK, let's test that proposition.  Why did the SC decide Bostock, the Census case, DACA, Hellerstad, and the Trump tax returns cases the way they did?  These were all major/controversial cases.  For that matter, why did John Roberts, that well-known liberal, dissent in Dobbs? 

Again, because they deemed it too controversial and too dangerous to rule otherwise at that time. 

Reverse question - why did they wait until now to do Dobbs? Because they felt they could get away with it. 

A whole lot of power in politics is deciding whether or not to actually use the power they have. Up until 2016 a whole lot of that was decidedly not used because of prior norms. That's out the window. But let's not pretend that their decisions are based primarily on laws and choices; they chose to favor precedent until it was valuable enough for them not to. 

[Kalbear]

And to shoot down @Tywin et al.'s point of view, the right thing to say is this: not all lawyers are unethical shitbags, but our political system absolutely favors putting into power some of the most unethical shitbags as judges, especially at the highest levels. Each side wants people who care significantly more about the rule of politics over the rule of law at the higher points. Their unethical behavior outside of that stems largely from that fact. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And to shoot down @Tywin et al.'s point of view, the right thing to say is this: not all lawyers are unethical shitbags, but our political system absolutely favors putting into power some of the most unethical shitbags as judges, especially at the highest levels. Each side wants people who care significantly more about the rule of politics over the rule of law at the higher points. Their unethical behavior outside of that stems largely from that fact. 

I think that is a fair criticism.  My wife and I have speculated that we would be better off with a lottery for the selection of Judges and Justices.  Create a basic level of competency, test for it.  Then select from the pool at random for set terms of office.  Remove patronage from the equation altogether.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think that is a fair criticism.  My wife and I have speculated that we would be better off with a lottery for the selection of Judges and Justices.  Create a basic level of competency, test for it.  Then select from the pool at random for set terms of office.  Remove patronage from the equation altogether.

Something like that would probably work better. Alternately have a pool of judges that are randomly selected for every case and every year a new one is put into the pool by the POTUS in charge regardless of any openings. It won't ever be perfect, but it would probably be better. 

[Zorral]

Our lawyers, we have two, one for the Cuban affairs, which is what his firm handles, everything from visas to immigration issues, property issues, and making sure that we, on this end, don't break whatever change in the laws governing our behavior as US citizens with Cuba, and one for our other matters, are wonderful people, and wonderful attorneys too.  But they are not trial attorneys, so I don't know.

I also know a fair number of immigration attorneys, and they are all terrific people and all about not breaching laws or lying.

There are as many lawyers as there are different legal areas.  The problems are with those who deal with finance and politics, and where these intersect, so ya, that hits the SCOTUS squarely, or the sorts who work for the slime balls such as gangsters like the orange monster.

[Mindwalker]

3 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

I read once that books on ethics are stolen from libraries at shockingly high frequencies compared to other kinds.

 

Can confirm. At my university, the two groups stealing most books were students of Theology and of... the Law. (And borrowing them is free ofc.)

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not going to start assuming anyone in any profession is “bad” because they took up that profession.  I’m not going to assume the worst until proven wrong.  I refuse to do that.

Walter White, great guy, right? 

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Please. If Jesus was half the the White Christian Rich American Savior so many people profess to believe he is...he'd sue then pants off of MTG for defamation of character...

Them eyes were so blue though...

Also, kind of funny how Jesus disliked wealthy people, but is embraced by them today. Funny how that happens.

45 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Also heard a similar rumor about the Law departments at German Universities, I marked them as urban legends in my memory. Altho, I could ask someone who is currently doing JD, if that is common practice. I happen to meet this WE (another WE ruined by chess).

I doubt it's common anywhere these days. However it speaks to a certain culture of pitting your students against one another. It's why I oppose grading on a curve.

Quote

But you'd make a poor German btw. Just stop beating around the bush, and ask Zabz directly about the number of books she destroyed during her days as a law student. 

Zabz, I just want to point out, that's ty's question, not mine. 

Oh please, I'd fit right in. And @Mlle. Zabzie knows I dislike her profession. Not just being a lawyer, but a tax attorney for large financial actors. Yuck.

Doesn't mean we can't still be friends. Some of my favorite people I've met through my travels are likely far worse. At least her weapon of choice is a pen.

16 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And to shoot down @Tywin et al.'s point of view, the right thing to say is this: not all lawyers are unethical shitbags, but our political system absolutely favors putting into power some of the most unethical shitbags as judges, especially at the highest levels. Each side wants people who care significantly more about the rule of politics over the rule of law at the higher points. Their unethical behavior outside of that stems largely from that fact. 

How does this disagree with anything I've said?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

How does this disagree with anything I've said?

Because what you're saying is that lawyers are specifically unethical, and judges most of all. My point is that anyone who is part of the political process is going to be more unethical regardless of job or background. The reason that judges - especially higher court ones - are unethical has little to do with them being judges and more to do with the system requiring judges show their partisan patrons results. 

[Zorral]

In the meantime this all the North Dakota latest session of legislation was about-- we can't call it ethnic cleansing exactly, but it sure is affirming the erasure of all sorts of people living the lives they have the right to live:

https://apnews.com/article/north-dakota-transgender-abortion-book-ban-24ec22590eb56aadec65d73134569055

It's all prohibiting and banning transgender participation in the world, women's health care, and books/education.  That's all the 'matters of governing' they could be bothered with.  Lazy sobs.

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think that is a fair criticism.  My wife and I have speculated that we would be better off with a lottery for the selection of Judges and Justices.  Create a basic level of competency, test for it.  Then select from the pool at random for set terms of office.  Remove patronage from the equation altogether.

I agree. The judge should be selected like the jury. All you need to do after that is give them a few clerks to help them figure out some of the details. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, during exam season(s) the releant textbooks can be sparse.

However, I had two (semi-legal) ways around it, which didn't involve stealing books (at least not in a traditional sense).

1. I am from a major city. I moved to a smaller town to study. However, the major city had the advantage of big public library. Library passes don't cost that much, so I had a relatively easy access to the textbooks outside the smaller university pond.

2. Copy shop. Fortunately in my university town, there was (probably still is) cafe/copyshop run by folks with handycaps. They took care of that annoying business of standing there for hours to copy those books page by page, they bound those copies, too for a fair price. Alternative is ofc stuff like amazon market place, where you can pick up those text books on the cheap, too.

[Tywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Because what you're saying is that lawyers are specifically unethical, and judges most of all. My point is that anyone who is part of the political process is going to be more unethical regardless of job or background. The reason that judges - especially higher court ones - are unethical has little to do with them being judges and more to do with the system requiring judges show their partisan patrons results. 

Nah, just that they're more likely to be unethical than your average person, in part because it's built into the field, and that as you go higher up the chain the likeliness that the level of unethicalness gets worse increases. And it's not exclusive to politics. Just think of some of the most famous defense attorneys. Johnnie Cochran was a bold face liar and everyone knew it. One of his younger attorneys on the OJ trial, Carl Douglas, openly talks about the lack of truth in the legal field, but smiles and says he uses it to advantage.

"In math, 2+2=4. In the eyes of the law, it equals something between 3 and 5." (Paraphrasing) 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It is possible, that 2+2 = 5. Every literate chess players knows this.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nah, just that they're more likely to be unethical than your average person, in part because it's built into the field, and that as you go higher up the chain the likeliness that the level of unethicalness gets worse increases. And it's not exclusive to politics. Just think of some of the most famous defense attorneys. Johnnie Cochran was a bold face liar and everyone knew it. One of his younger attorneys on the OJ trial, Carl Douglas, openly talks about the lack of truth in the legal field, but smiles and says he uses it to advantage.

"In math, 2+2=4. In the eyes of the law, it equals something between 3 and 5." (Paraphrasing) 

And that's precisely where I disagree with you. I don't think they're more likely to be unethical than anyone else in any particular profession, especially those with power. They're not particularly less ethical than, say, business majors as an example. 

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m not privy to assume every accusation has merit.

Not to deny the existence of such cases.

Just yesterday I saw people ready to dox(and as far as I know doxxed one) and ruin the lives of a couple women who were sitting at a public bench that a trans state house representative worked at the day before(she was barred from the chambers because she complained about her colleagues wanting trans people dead), people in this were too quick to cry bigot.

Some cases the complaints will have merit.

Sometimes I think it’s people, especially libs, but I’ve seen leftists do this too being concerned about their own personal stature within a group being displaced through having an unwoke and framing this personal trepidation as mere pragmatic politicking or in pursuit of a  grander purpose.

Sometimes it’s libs who are more concerned about appearing more intellectual than conservatives by disparaging tactics conservatives use effectively to actually their goals of setting a social standard. Or libs who fetishize the idea of compromise being good by itself.

Sure, people will differ in what they think constitutes illiberal tactics, and self-interest will often color such perspectives. 

For me, it presents a political crisis. How can we face the Sauron of the right wing if our fellowship is fighting itself, calling each other orcs? We can't. It's the self-cannibalizing dynamics that I can't stand, because it leaves us most vulnerable to a movement that wants to wipe us all out.

This is one article that gets at the problem at hand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/opinion/the-left-purity-politics.html

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And that's precisely where I disagree with you. I don't think they're more likely to be unethical than anyone else in any particular profession, especially those with power. They're not particularly less ethical than, say, business majors as an example. 

 

Sure. I didn't say lawyers were unique, but it's a part of the trade. Marketing firms have been found to hire phycologists to help them manipulate kids through ads, for example. I just don't get why we pretend this doesn't happen.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

I assume anyone who makes more than me is automatically guilty of something. It doesn't make me just, but it does make me feel better about myself. And positivity is key. 

Also at least 90% of supervision is incompetent and should not be trusted with anything of great import ("Just keep the time correct and fuck off thank you")

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Going a few weeks back about the rolling back of child labour protection laws

I'm not loving it.

[Gaston de Foix]

43 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Again, because they deemed it too controversial and too dangerous to rule otherwise at that time. 

Reverse question - why did they wait until now to do Dobbs? Because they felt they could get away with it. 

A whole lot of power in politics is deciding whether or not to actually use the power they have. Up until 2016 a whole lot of that was decidedly not used because of prior norms. That's out the window. But let's not pretend that their decisions are based primarily on laws and choices; they chose to favor precedent until it was valuable enough for them not to. 

No that's not why.  I gave you a long list so fair enough your answer is responsive to some not others.  Let's leave abortion/gay rights/immigration aside for the moment and focus on the Trump tax and Census cases because I think they are the best examples.  In both, the CJ upheld the rule of law over political/partisan considerations.  

But you are right that politics is a factor.  It's why the census case was 5-4 instead of 9-0.

Anyone who says ideological considerations are not a major factor in important SC decisions is lying.  Anyone who thinks they should be is deluded.  It is the rot in the system.  As Scot said, all human beings and human institutions are capable of failure, sometimes catastrophic failure.  Other higher courts, such as the UKSC do a much better job of removing partisan/idealogues from their operations.  

And to answer your question on Dobbs - why did "they" wait till now? Because the political movement that made judges and "But Gorsuch" an important mainstay of Trump's rise and continuance in power was committed to judges who would overturn the constitutional right to abortion.  RBG didn't retire at the right time and the composition of the Court shifted three times.  Another way of thinking about this is that actually the constitutional right to abortion had remarkable staying power considering that the Republicans had an extraordinary run of luck where they appointed 11 out of 16 SC justices between Roe v Wade and Dobbs. 

Only the defections of Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy and Roberts (in Hellerstadt) preserved the right to abortion.  They defected not because of political considerations but despite it.  

I'm happy to concede that many in the legal profession are rotten.  It's a damning indictment of my profession that of the 4 Senators who have clerked for the SC (Hawley, Cruz, Lee and Blumenthal) - three of them tried to overturn the 2020 election.  That's depressing considering being a SC clerk is the acme of professional accomplishment for a young lawyer.  But not, I hope, all of us.