The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Res ipsa loquitur:

in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged “flagrant examples of such fraud” throughout the nation’s history and observed that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but also that “it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

So a left-leaning SCOTUS Justice says voter fraud is real and is a problem. and he said it six years ago.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Res ipsa loquitur:

So a left-leaning SCOTUS Justice says voter fraud is real and is a problem. and he said it six years ago.

Justice Stevens today:

"I have always thought that David Souter [in his dissent] got the thing correct, but my own problem with the case was that I didn't think the record supported everything he said in his opinion," said Justice Stevens, who retired in 2010. "He got a lot of stuff off the Internet and inferred things and so forth." But "as a matter of actual history, he's dead right. The impact of the statute is much more serious" on poor, minority, disabled and elderly voters than evidence in the 2008 case demonstrated, he said.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Res ipsa loquitur:



So a left-leaning SCOTUS Justice says voter fraud is real and is a problem. and he said it six years ago.

I don't subscribe to WSJ. Where are you saying res ipsa comes into play?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't subscribe to WSJ. Where are you saying res ipsa comes into play?

He's saying that if a liberal cites a conservative talking point that proves it. Like when Bush Senior called trickle down "Voodoo Econo--" wait what?!

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

He's saying that if a liberal cites a conservative talking point that proves it. Like when Bush Senior called trickle down "Voodoo Econo--" wait what?!

I guess someone will have to explain how res ipsa relates to that.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I guess someone will have to explain how res ipsa relates to that.

He's confusing "it speaks for itself" with "convicted out of his own mouth." To be fair, I don't know the Latin for the latter, either.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

He's confusing "it speaks for itself" with "convicted out of his own mouth." To be fair, I don't know the Latin for the latter, either.

And I think there is a difference between "the thing speaks for itself" and "the thing itself speaks."

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And I think there is a difference between "the thing speaks for itself" and "the thing itself speaks."

There is?

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

There is?

Yes, it has to do with the ordering of some of the existing words and adding the word "for."

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Yes, it has to do with the ordering of some of the existing words and adding the word "for."

OK, I think I'm following you so far. But is there a difference in meaning?

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

OK, I think I'm following you so far. But is there a difference in meaning?

I might be way off on its intended usage, but when you state that "it speaks for itself" the nature of its existence points to the proof of its quality or importance, while "the thing itself speaks" means you have a talking dog.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I might be way off on its intended usage, but when you state that "it speaks for itself" the nature of its existence points to the proof of its quality or importance, while "the thing itself speaks" means you have a talking dog.

I see. I don't think Cicero has a talking dog in mind.

I think this is a case where a loose translation captures the sense better than a direct translation.

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'll take a shot at it, though I don't know latin, and I'm probably at sea.

When say something "speaks for itself," I think of something like the quality of a work of art or a person's ability to hit a baseball, cook a meal, or sing. I assume the quality of the song, the meal or work of art is the focus of what is being defined. No other evidence or quality opinion is necessary to describe or evaluate the thing. I am seeing an emphasis on the for "for" in the phrase. That is just the way I interpret that phrase.

In res ipsa, though, the physical facts themselves tell a story about other circumstances without the need for extrinsic evidence, often when no such information is available. The fact physical fact might be a scalpel left in a body, but there is no definition or quality given to the scalpel itself (unlike the song or the artwork); rather, the presence of the scalpel tells us somebody handling it screwed up. The scalpel is telling us something about other facts or concepts about which there may be not other way to evaluate. The focus is not on the thing that speaks but on the implications of its existence, as discovered.

Sounds like bullshat and probably is. In fact, I guess you could say the burd's brain just spoke for itself.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't subscribe to WSJ. Where are you saying res ipsa comes into play?

It's my understanding that, rather than a literal translation from the Latin of "the thing speaks for itself," the saying is generally used colloquially to mean "no additional commentary from me is needed."




"SCOTUS Justice says voter fraud is a serious problem."

so that I don't need to say anything additional at all about the subject: SCOTUS Justice has already said all that needs saying.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It's my understanding that, rather than a literal translation from the Latin of "the thing speaks for itself," the saying is generally used colloquially to mean "no additional commentary from me is needed."

As described below, res doesn't quite mean that, but it's pretty close. For the thing you are talking about I generally use "Submitted without comment."

The difference:

Submitted without comment: Rick Santorum is quoted as saying "we will never have the smart people on our side."

vs

Since the adoption of Reaganomics in 1980, the wealthiest 1% have tripled their net worth in real dollars, while the median wage earner has suffered a loss in real earnings. Res ipsa loquitur.