And here is the court at its most maddening. Just because something is hard to draw a bright line on does not mean they cannot make a ruling.
This is probably best exemplified by justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio:
tl;dr The court could not draw a bright line on what is and is not hard-core pornography but it knows it when it sees it. Seems about right for Gerrymandering too.
Why can’t I adopt the same position with respect to gerrymandering, then?
Oh noes! A Pit thread?
Sure, I could answer. But why? You’ll use my answer as persuasive if you agree with it and discard it if it’s not. This seems inconsistent to me.
Does that work when you are in court? Just tell the judge you see no point in arguing the case because the other side will just cherry pick the things they want to disagree with and agree with the rest and that is inconsistent?
No one asks for my personal opinion in court, Whack.
You can adopt any position you want. I’m asking about your personal beliefs, which for some reason you’re dodging around rather than just answering a simple question.
I decline to answer.
Y’know, this sentiment would be kinda cute if you weren’t talking about giving African-Americans the franchise.
So what? You can’t give an opinion unless you are paid?
Pretend you are in court and are asked a question. Do it for us.
Yknow this argument is reasonable (if mildly obnoxious) when you’re thumbing your nose at liberals wanting to extend marriage rights to gay people, or wishing the courts had some recourse for things that should be illegal but for some fucked up reason aren’t. But when what we’re talking about is, fundamentally, the undermining of how that agreement works, this argument is utterly unreasonable (and incredibly obnoxious). What’s been going on in North Carolina is a systematic dismantling of the state-level democracy by a republican party desperate to hold onto power. If this were happening in some foreign country, it’d be considered deeply disturbing and a sign of the rise of authoritarianism. Our agreement on how to pass laws is currently under active assault. They’ve publicly admitted as much. So arguing “well, just fix it by passing better laws” misses the point entirely. They’re attacking exactly that mechanism - *that’s the problem! *
We’ve got Cafe Society, Marketplace, Mundane Pointless, etc. Where’s the Comedy Room? Is this it, Elections?
Oh? What Esquire neglects to mention is that Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) was decided by a 5-4 vote. Any guesses who the 5 were and who the 4? (“I’ll take partisan SCOTUS decisions for $600, Alex.”*) The 5 whom Bricker refers to as “the Supreme Court” were “Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, Thomas with Kennedy concurring.” The 4 whose opinions Bricker doesn’t deign to mention were “Stevens, Souter joined by Ginsburg, and Breyer.” (And watch it now feel it needs to mention that a 5-4 Scotus ruling is as “good” as 9-0.)
So “the Supreme Court” took “no position on whether that’s actually what’s desirable”? I’d add this to my repertoire of jokes but it’s just a tired “shaggy dog.”
The only question is, how would Scotus have voted if it had been the Democrats cheating and the R’s complaining. Anyone think it would have been the exact same 5-4 split? — Let me hire you as straight man for my next comedy gig!
Would it have been 6-3 the opposite way with all Justices except Souter consistently supporting the Party that put them on the high court? Would it have been 8-1 the other way, with 4 liberals and Kennedy voting on principle not politics?
I’d put my money on a 7-2 decision against gerrymandering if it were by the D’s — that’s giving the right-wing hacks on the Court a little credit! One of them might actually have a scruple.
Folks? Polite request: if you really find Bricker’s brand of moral relativism that fascinating, do you mind debating it elsewhere? It’s really making this thread lose focus.
To the contrary, I am paid to be a zealous advocate for a client’s interest. My personal opinion is never part of the deal.
I’m responding exactly as I would in court: with an explanation of the application of the extant law to the instant facts.
You know, sometimes, when I’m feeling particularly lonely, I’ll call my lawyer, because he’s actually cheaper than phone sex.
It is true that he doesn’t give me his personal opinion on matters when I am paying him, instead, he gives me the best advice he can to help me with my concerns, and even takes action on my part to address them.
OTOH, he also goes to church with my parents, and he apparently does actually have opinions that he is capable of expressing when he is not getting paid.
Me too. But in this venue, I don’t care to share my personal opinions. They are of no relevance.
Do you realize that makes you literally the *only *person on this board who thinks that way?
False. I also think Bricker’s personal opinions are of no relevance.
Still, there is value in having a voice that eschews any personal opinions, and delivers only rock solid facts and irrefutable observations.
Our opinions form who we are. They explain where we are coming from. They indicate what things we would advocate for.
I have an opinion on what is best for our country, my state, my community, and my business. I express those opinions in the actions that I take, the conversations that I have, and the candidates I support and vote for.
There are times when only the nitty gritty of settled law is of relevance. If you were my lawyer, I wouldn’t really want your opinions swaying my case, only your legal knowledge. I do appreciate that I’ve learned a bit about the law from your posts that I would not have learned otherwise. That’s cool, when such is called for.
But when we go out and vote, when we talk about who we will vote for, when we talk about the issues that concern us, that is all entirely opinion. things may be law, but we can elect people to change those laws, if, in our opinion, those laws do not serve our communities well.
When someone defends the status quo, it is natural to assume that their opinion is that the status quo is preferable to change. When you defend the status quo, it can only be inferred that you do so because you prefer it to the changes that are being proposed. We know that the changes are not law, that’s why they are changes that are being proposed. Pointing out that changes that are being advocated for, due to our personal opinions on how to best run our communities are not the current law of the land is what it pretty much completely irrelevant to any thread, conversation, or even monologue you could possibly think of.
Can I assume that when there’s news of the gerrymandering case, folks will return to discussing it, instead of delving into the fascinating topic of Bricker’s psyche? We’re waiting on the Supreme Court, so spending dozens of posts speculating on whether Bricker has good opinions or not, and offering him meringues and ladyfingers if only he’ll share them with us, is good clean family fun. But Christ almighty I hope we can get back to the meat of the thread eventually.