Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't work at a law firm, Sparky, but I am a member of the Supreme Court bar and prevailed 5-4 in the last case where I was counsel of record.

If you disagree with anything I'm saying about the Court, say so.

cite please?

Do you think anything turned on those facts? If she had misspelled the lawyers' names, that would be embarrassing too, but it would have been equally inconsequential for the merits.

it seems her vote turned on it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But you said it doesn’t matter so how does it show anything?

JFC, are you trying to have a conversation or just to be a blowhard?

If I am a Supreme Court justice and I dissent in a patent case, and I write, the majority's decision is terrible because it will block innovation that would save 1 million lives every year, that number may be completely fictitious and also irrelevant to the merits of the case, and yet I am using it to try to argue to posterity that the majority's decision is a bad thing. Do you not agree that was what Sotomayor was doing? The majority's theory had nothing to do with the idea that OSHA can only act against harms that kill lots of people. Quite the opposite -- the premise was that OSHA can't require vaccination because COVID kills people outside work too.

The big problem there is that the conservative majority reached a shitty decision, with shitty legal reasoning.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cite please?

544 U.S. 460

it seems her vote turned on it?

cite please?

eta: Here's the transcript of oral argument -- just give me page and line for what you have in mind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

544 U.S. 460

Very cool. So Sotomayer voted voted for your side, or she had nothing to do w it?

Conf to Ty- very cool. My firm got there for what I expect will be the only time and it’s remote😢

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

JFC, are you trying to have a conversation or just to be a blowhard?

If I am a Supreme Court justice and I dissent in a patent case, and I write, the majority's decision is terrible because it will block innovation that would save 1 million lives every year, that number may be completely fictitious and also irrelevant to the merits of the case, and yet I am using it to try to argue to posterity that the majority's decision is a bad thing. Do you not agree that was what Sotomayor was doing? The majority's theory had nothing to do with the idea that OSHA can only act against harms that kill lots of people. Quite the opposite -- the premise was that OSHA can't require vaccination because COVID kills people outside work too.

The big problem there is that the conservative majority reached a shitty decision, with shitty legal reasoning.

All about owning the libs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

All about owning the libs.

This was silly. Ty and ggg agree, but people who actually think about stuff will find it vapid hyperbole.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Very cool. So Sotomayer voted voted for your side, or she had nothing to do w it?

She was stall on the Second Circuit then.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She was stall on the Second Circuit then.

I know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what you were saying about her, Hank. Here's my post again, in case you missed it. Show off all your recent Supreme Court experience.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cite please?

544 U.S. 460

it seems her vote turned on it?

cite please?

eta: Here's the transcript of oral argument -- just give me page and line for what you have in mind.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is there an example of a Supreme Court decision where the majority and minority differed on a straight historical question? I don't recall ever having seen one. They would take the history more seriously if it actually mattered.

Heller is a pretty good start.

They spend an awful lot of time writing about history if none of it is relevant.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Heller is a pretty good start.

They spend an awful lot of time writing about history if none of it is relevant.

Heller is exactly the point. If the nine justices had spent a month locked up with the best historians on the subject, would it have changed a vote? Would you like to buy a bridge?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Heller is exactly the point. If the nine justices had spent a month locked up with the best historians on the subject, would it have changed a vote? Would you like to buy a bridge?

If your position is that none of their words matter because it is all outcome oriented then you've pretty much distilled my point.

Their words should matter. The conclusion should flow from the analysis, not the other way around.

Hank spotted this, you and I apparently do agree. But I see this as a problem and you don't.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

All you people posting based upon blogs you read should listen to your betters. And GGG she is not “a lawyer,” she a fucking Supreme Court Justice hearing a case that impacts every big company in this country, so “playing loose with the facts” is reprehensible, and daffy.

Dude, you do realize I was saying that playing loose with the facts is a very very bad thing. A really awful thing.

I also said she wasn't the only one to do it - Gorsuch misstated basic facts in the same arguments, and others do it all the fucking time. And we should always object.

You, however, should also learn to read, so you get basic facts, like me criticizing her for getting facts wrong. right. Fucking lawyers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If your position is that none of their words matter because it is all outcome oriented then you've pretty much distilled my point.

Their words should matter. The conclusion should flow from the analysis, not the other way around.

Hank spotted this, you and I apparently do agree. But I see this as a problem and you don't.

I think what I'm trying to say to you (both) is that the loose handling of facts is a symptom, not a cause. Yes, the Court should be engaging in principled legal analysis, not outcome-oriented hackery. The vaccination decision was outcome-oriented hackery, a shitshow of purported statutory interpretation. The reason for that is *not* that the justices are incapable of factual (or historical) analysis. As it happens, that is not their forte, and it should surprise no one, because if you were designing an institution to do that stuff well, you wouldn't take nine geriatric lawyers, who get their jobs by being politically well-connected, and give them a staff of a few booksmart but utterly inexperienced law-school graduates. Would it be nice if they did a better job? Absolutely. But the much more fundamental problem is that the conservative movement has politicized the Court. The conservative majority just prevented the government from protecting workers from getting sick, because conservatives have decided to oppose vaccination out of opposition to seeing Biden succeed. (Find me a conservative who thinks that children with lice ought to be free to go to school and sit next to lice-free children because freedom.)

The vaccination decision totally pisses me off. In that context, it also pisses me off that someone could respond to it by saying that Sotomayor is stupid because she got a predicate fact wrong in a question in oral argument. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

eta: And why is this worth arguing about? If you have a traditionalist's faith in the Court as an institution, and in constitutional law as a discipline, then you can lament the decline of craft on the part of the justices, and think things like, if only their analysis and regard for the facts were a little better -- that's the kind of reform we need. I have lost that faith, in the Court and in constitutional law. I think conservatives have corrupted the Court, and constitutional law. Both are, broadly speaking, mechanisms to sort out disagreements about how run things, and most conservatives are too afraid that they are losing to be willing to compromise about such things. Blinding oneself to what conservatives are doing, to the Court and to the country, is a form of naivety that is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You, however, should also learn to read, so you get basic facts, like me criticizing her for getting facts wrong. right. Fucking lawyers.

Hank apparently gets to make shit up, like the idea that her vote depended on that fact. Sotomayor is stupid, but he's a storyteller!