Libby von H
Platinum Member
- Nov 10, 2023
- 2,830
- 1,342
- 893
So some on here (with no legal background or more than basic knowledge of American History) opine that the Supreme Court has extremists.
So, let's examine why that must be false
1) Are they extremists of all one stripe or of opposed stripes , for if opposed that is how the Court is supposed to work.
2) Poster never even says whehter the extremism is in ignoring the Constitution (as with Brown, Sotomayor, and Kagan) or actually interpreting it against its obvious meaning. They are not the same thing but poster has no conception that they are not
3) There is an extemism that is laudable and necessary. Remember “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”
4) Poster never betrays any yardstick for the judgment (itself a sign of extremism in the poster, for are we take poster as Oracle ???) To make sense , any sense, of what the poster says we have to assume that all these extremes are in the same direction at least for a given judge, but he NEVER says that. SO we can only conclude poster accepts the liberal positionS but not a one Conservative Position [ no plural]
5) and what proves to me an essential bad education in the poster is that poster wants to affirm that a Constitutional law must be a good law. The entire history of the Courst is against that . A stupid pointless self-defeating trivial law can nonetheless be constitutional. Reason tells you this must be the case.
So, let's examine why that must be false
1) Are they extremists of all one stripe or of opposed stripes , for if opposed that is how the Court is supposed to work.
2) Poster never even says whehter the extremism is in ignoring the Constitution (as with Brown, Sotomayor, and Kagan) or actually interpreting it against its obvious meaning. They are not the same thing but poster has no conception that they are not
3) There is an extemism that is laudable and necessary. Remember “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”
4) Poster never betrays any yardstick for the judgment (itself a sign of extremism in the poster, for are we take poster as Oracle ???) To make sense , any sense, of what the poster says we have to assume that all these extremes are in the same direction at least for a given judge, but he NEVER says that. SO we can only conclude poster accepts the liberal positionS but not a one Conservative Position [ no plural]
5) and what proves to me an essential bad education in the poster is that poster wants to affirm that a Constitutional law must be a good law. The entire history of the Courst is against that . A stupid pointless self-defeating trivial law can nonetheless be constitutional. Reason tells you this must be the case.
