What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There is an intractable set of problems in philosophy known as the Sorites Paradox. I wish the author had used English...this concept is central to some of our debates here.

The sorites paradox is the name given to a class of paradoxical arguments, also known as little-by-little arguments, which arise as a result of the indeterminacy surrounding limits of application of the predicates involved. For example, the concept of a heap appears to lack sharp boundaries and, as a consequence of the subsequent indeterminacy surrounding the extension of the predicate ‘is a heap’, no one grain of wheat can be identified as making the difference between being a heap and not being a heap. Given then that one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it would seem to follow that two do not, thus three do not, and so on. In the end it would appear that no amount of wheat can make a heap. We are faced with paradox since from apparently true premises by seemingly uncontroversial reasoning we arrive at an apparently false conclusion.
Click to expand...

Take the abortion debate, for example. Pretend we have with us a reasonable person without any strong ideological preferences one way or the other. We start a conversation with our amiable friend.

"Suppose a newborn infant is smothered. is that murder?"
-- of course.
"Suppose we have an infant, still inside the womb, one day away from birth. If that infant is killed, is it murder?"
-- obviously, why should one day make such a big difference?
"Well, if one day doesn't make a difference, what about two?"
-- totally agree.
We can probably do this for a few more steps at least, and as we've learned from the Kermit Gosnell case, juries agree with this logic as well...as long as we are close enough to birth that just about every "reasonable" person agrees that, once you have a fully-formed infant capable of living on its own independently without assistance, there is little effective distinction to be made whether it is inside the womb or not: "late enough" in the gestation process, it's murder.

However,.....

You can "play the same game" from the other end as well.

Back to our amiable reasonable non-ideological friend....

"Suppose we keep the sperm from reaching the egg in the first place. Do you see any problem with that?"
-- no, in this day and age, it's prudent and responsible unless you want to have a child.
"Suppose the sperm fertilizes the egg, but the egg doesn't implant in the uterine wall?"
-- if you can flush it out without harming the mother, why not?
"Suppose it implants in the uterine wall, but cell division hasn't started yet?"
-- seems reasonable
"Suppose cell division has started, but you have an undifferentiated lump of tissue?"
-- still okay so far

and we reach a point where, even if human life begins at conception, human beings don't come into existence until weeks or months later.

The Sorites paradox is intractable, as I've said; some awareness of how it works and "which end" of the argument one starts from helps us realize that neither extreme really works for most people on most issues, yet it is the extremists who seem to have the loudest voices and dominate the discussion the most.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
you only ... attack one side.
Click to expand...

Only one "side" has power at a time. If the "side" in power abuses that power, do you speak up or stand idly by?



I'm against big government intrusion and overreach no matter which "side" practices it. If you say being opposed to encroachments on civil liberties is being "partisan" then by definition I must be partisan. Funny, though, how being in favor of the one "side" is NOT partisan, only being opposed to that one "side" is partisan.

Wouldn't people who always favor one "side" be just as partisan as people who always oppose one "side"?




Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize. Maybe you did not mean to sound like you were saying "if you support the current government you are not partisan but if you oppose the current government you are partisan" and it is a mistaken interpretation on my part to think that is what you said.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FreshFish said:
Only one "side" has power at a time. If the "side" in power abuses that power, do you speak up or stand idly by?
Click to expand...

The last time I checked we have three branches of government. One is split between Democrats and Republicans. One is controlled by Democrats. The other, the topic of this thread, is controlled by Conservatives. I've yet to see you attack (and perhaps I've just missed those posts) any Republican/Conservative idea. That's the definition of partisan (see below).



FreshFish said:
I'm against big government intrusion and overreach no matter which "side" practices it. If you say being opposed to encroachments on civil liberties is being "partisan" then by definition I must be partisan. Funny, though, how being in favor of the one "side" is NOT partisan, only being opposed to that one "side" is partisan.

Wouldn't people who always favor one "side" be just as partisan as people who always oppose one "side"?




Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize. Maybe you did not mean to sound like you were saying "if you support the current government you are not partisan but if you oppose the current government you are partisan" and it is a mistaken interpretation on my part to think that is what you said.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will clear this up...

Partisan Definition said:
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause
Click to expand...

You are the bolded portions.

I'm not saying that others here are not, but they at least recognize that they are partisan. I've yet to see you make that same statement, although your posts have been making this clear for quite some time.

That being said, we're completely off topic. Hopefully we can get back to discussing the Court and the cases that are coming out of it. The partisan bull**** should be saved for other threads.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
The last time I checked we have three branches of government. One is split between Democrats and Republicans. One is controlled by Democrats. The other, the topic of this thread, is controlled by Conservatives. I've yet to see you attack (and perhaps I've just missed those posts) any Republican/Conservative idea. That's the definition of partisan (see below).





Perhaps this will clear this up...



You are the bolded portions.

I'm not saying that others here are not, but they at least recognize that they are partisan. I've yet to see you make that same statement, although your posts have been making this clear for quite some time.

That being said, we're completely off topic. Hopefully we can get back to discussing the Court and the cases that are coming out of it. The partisan bull**** should be saved for other threads.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that in the Brave New World, John Cornyn is considered liberal.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Activist judges are a dime a dozen anymore. My guess is they have a secret contest to see who can be the least respectful of the will of the people and the actions of other branches of government.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob Gray said:
Activist judges are a dime a dozen anymore. My guess is they have a secret contest to see who can be the least respectful of the will of the people and the actions of other branches of government.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in hearing exactly why you say that--in terms of specific opinions. As for the Court's respect for the will of the people, read Marbury v. Madison.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob Gray said:
Activist judges are a dime a dozen anymore.
Click to expand...

And shockingly, they're only activist when they disagree with you. :rolleyes:

"Activist judges" is simply shorthand for a person to whine about a decision they disagreed with without having to explain why it was a legally incorrect decision. When you use that phrase in a non-ironic manner, it simply points to your own laziness.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
The last time I checked we have three branches of government. One is split between Democrats and Republicans. One is controlled by Democrats. The other, the topic of this thread, is controlled by Conservatives. I've yet to see you attack (and perhaps I've just missed those posts) any Republican/Conservative idea. That's the definition of partisan (see below).





Perhaps this will clear this up...



You are the bolded portions.

I'm not saying that others here are not, but they at least recognize that they are partisan. I've yet to see you make that same statement, although your posts have been making this clear for quite some time.

That being said, we're completely off topic. Hopefully we can get back to discussing the Court and the cases that are coming out of it. The partisan bull**** should be saved for other threads.
Click to expand...

You have Fish all wrong...he is a liberal he told us so :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

burd said:
I would be interested in hearing exactly why you say that--in terms of specific opinions. As for the Court's respect for the will of the people, read Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...
The examples are legion. Take the Utah judge who won't leave gay marriage on hold while the courts sort it out. Hopefully the Appeals Court has more sense, though I won't hold my breath (at least it isn't the 9th Circuit!).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob Gray said:
The examples are legion. Take the Utah judge who won't leave gay marriage on hold while the courts sort it out. Hopefully the Appeals Court has more sense, though I won't hold my breath (at least it isn't the 9th Circuit!).
Click to expand...
"The courts" HAVE sorted it out - he is a duly appointed federal judge, after all. Until there's a different ruling by a higher court (and there's certainly no guarantee that there will be), his ruling is the law of the land.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

LynahFan said:
"The courts" HAVE sorted it out - he is a duly appointed federal judge, after all. Until there's a different ruling by a higher court (and there's certainly no guarantee that there will be), his ruling is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

For that district.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob Gray said:
The examples are legion. Take the Utah judge who won't leave gay marriage on hold while the courts sort it out. Hopefully the Appeals Court has more sense, though I won't hold my breath (at least it isn't the 9th Circuit!).
Click to expand...

What's the case name, Bob?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Priceless said:
Which is where people are getting married...
Click to expand...

Yes, but when people use the phrase "the law of the land", it often causes people to associate that with the entire country, regardless of whether or not it's intended as being regional by the person writing or saying the phrase.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
"Activist judges" is simply shorthand for a person to whine about a decision they disagreed with without having to explain why it was a legally incorrect decision. When you use that phrase in a non-ironic manner, it simply points to your own laziness.
Click to expand...


Many people use the term "activist judges" to apply to those who claim that the plain text of the law is insufficient, that the interpretation of the law is supposed to "evolve." A non-activist judge would prefer that Congress revise the text of the law so that the will of the people is reflected in the evolution, not merely someone's opinion. In this common usage, an "activist" judge is anyone who finds something that actually isn't written in the text at issue. They claim to have some special gift of prescience or telepathy that ordinary mortals, who are limited by what they can actually see in front of them, lack.

There are plenty of legal scholars who support the conclusion of Roe v Wade who cringe at the idea of "penumbras" and "emanations." You can agree with an outcome while being mortified at how sloppy the reasoning is.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FreshFish said:
Many people use the term "activist judges" to apply to those who claim that the plain text of the law is insufficient, that the interpretation of the law is supposed to "evolve." A non-activist judge would prefer that Congress revise the text of the law so that the will of the people is reflected in the evolution, not merely someone's opinion. In this common usage, an "activist" judge is anyone who finds something that actually isn't written in the text at issue. They claim to have some special gift of prescience or telepathy that ordinary mortals, who are limited by what they can actually see in front of them, lack.

There are plenty of legal scholars who support the conclusion of Roe v Wade who cringe at the idea of "penumbras" and "emanations." You can agree with an outcome while being mortified at how sloppy the reasoning is.
Click to expand...
You're being far too restrictive in your allocation of power to the judiciary - under your model, judges would essentially only be there to proofread the laws and send them back to the legislature if the judges believe they are too vague or need updating. Any time a case arose that didn't quiiiiiite fit the framework of the law, instead of interpreting the law to determine how it should be applied to the new/unforeseen situation, the judges would have to send the issue back to Congress who would effectively become a jury for every such case. "But what did you mean here? And here? And there?" Completely unworkable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top