He’s an extremist, according to you, based solely on his state’s senators?
That’s how you guys judge judicial leanings, do you?
I would love to hear your stringent defense of this methodology. Please.
And that only speaks to the ‘more conservative than Scalia’ measurement. The other 87% figure has problems of its own.
This is the worst of the SDMB.
Lame, ridiculous leftist crap arguments that stand unchallenged by leftists.
What are you talking about? All the lame, crap arguments have been challenged by leftists here.
Which leftist challenged the lame, crap argument that free speech doesn’t apply to digital communications?
FWIW, I don’t think anyone actually argued in favor of that point.
IIRC it was put forward as an illustration of how everyone supports expanding interpretations of laws to some degree. I don’t put much stock in that particular argument, but I don’t think the argument was anything more than that.
Who challenged the 87%? Who challenged “more conservative than Scalia?”
I didn’t, but I don’t have any significant knowledge on how conservative or extreme he is.
We can only go by what people write.
Here’s the exact quote:
“Then the first amendment does not apply to digital communications.”
“Then” is the key word in that quote.
He was saying if you don’t buy into the notion that judges can creatively interpret the laws, then the first amendment does not apply to digital communication.
That’s not the same thing as actually taking such a stance.
Yes, but you can read his link, which discloses the basis for the claim. You can reason for yourself how defensible that claim is in light of the methodology used to make it. You could even have argued against the methodology while remaining agnostic as to the underlying fact: (“I don’t claim to know how conservative or extreme he is, but I’m thinking that assigning him the identical rating that anyone else nominated from his state would get, simply based on the senators from that state, is not that defensible.”)
But it’s the SDMB, it was a liberal claim, and . . . somehow, challenging it just wasn’t in the cards.
Sorry, I meant at the confirmation hearing, and the entire appeals process.
I don’t know about that, Bricker. I yield my conservative credentials to no one, but I didn’t go beyond quibbling a bit with the 87% claim (in post #250). Reason is not that I refrain from challenging liberal jive but simply that I didn’t bother looking through the basis for the 87% claim. I assume this is true of a lot of other people as well.
Not that your underlying claim is not valid. Just that I don’t know how much it applies in this instance, where you needed to do some research before realizing that a claim was very shaky.
Sure, I could have, but I was too busy refuting dumb liberal claims elsewhere on the internet.
I’ve quit my job, and cut my non-liberal-refuting time (including sleep) to 7 hours per day… HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?
I’m going to go lie down now.
I don’t think that’s a fair criticism. Not everyone reads every link, and given that claim isn’t really central to any underlying argument, it’s reasonable to not look at the methodology which you have to click through twice (some of it) to get to. Only if someone were to adopt that cite as support for a given position would I expect them to read it.
And if someone else points out the problems with the cite (me in post #253), there really is no need to add to that unless the item is contested. I don’t think anyone is contesting that the 87% figure and the ‘more conservative than Scalia’ criticism employed pretty terrible ways to measure anything.
That’s what you’re claiming. Really it’s because George Soros is not paying you anything to refute dumb liberal claims …
Um, no. How about if I apologize for not reading the link carefully and cheerfully retract the post in question instead?
Equally cheerfully accepted.
Damn it! How did I let that slip?
Well… no, still not in agreement. The SDMB, priding its collective self on being reality-based and skeptical, ought to have had more posters than you and me wonder at the absurdity of the exacting 87% figure and trigger a careful look at the cite.
It was confirmation bias.