# SCOTUS nominations have become political? Only since Bork. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741 "2016-05-03T01:01:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/121 "2016-05-07T01:22:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Sometimes, if the majority is large enough, they can. Try to market a canteloupe-flavored soft-drink to the American soft-drink market. Enough people won’t like it to make it “factual” that “Canta is a bad drink.” > > (Bummer, 'cause I think I’d like it.) > > Seriously, human consensus opinion is the foundation for facts, in a lot of cases. It used to be the fact that homosexuality was a deviant mental illness; that is no longer a fact. Not just the majority changed, but an overwhelming majority. You have a rather bizarre understanding of the difference between fact and opinion. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/122 "2016-05-07T01:40:09Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The Senate is acting childish. They have no obligation to vote in favor of a nominee, but it is obligated to hold hearings and go through the process. The voters knew that Obama would be nominating justices, if the voters wanted the second coming of Scalia then they would have voted for Romney. But the voters gave the responsibility to Obama, and it was for a full term, not 3/5 of a term because he’s black. > > The left went through the process with Bork and rejected him on his merits. Had Democrats simply said that Reagan had no right to nominate anyone they would have been as wrong as Republicans are today. If Republicans want conservative justices, perhaps they might try nominating better candidates for the presidency. 100% correct. The Senate is obligated to hold the vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/123 "2016-05-07T02:00:42Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Opinions, no matter how emphatically expressed, trump neither facts nor logic. I don’t know what emphasis has to do with it, but _In my opinion, that law is unconstitutional_ is a statement of, well, opinion. It is not necessary that it trump or be trumped by anything. If you can’t or won’t recognize the distinction between expressing an opinion and describing a fact (which of course can be challenged and possibly refuted, or “trumped” if you will, by other facts that prove it false) then I don’t know what to say to you, except that you should probably get over it because for the rest of your life you’re going to hear people declare things that carry an implied but unstated _In my opinion_ and if you challenge each occurrence, you’ll be wasting and awful lot of time and energy. And on this particular issue, constitutionality… it’s _all_ opinion, in the sense that a SCOTUS ruling represents the legal opinion of the majority of the (usually) nine justices. It only becomes a historical _fact_ that they ruled a particular way, and I’d be surprised if you’d actually seen anyone steadfastly fighting against such historical facts, claiming they never happened or happened differently and such. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/124 "2016-05-07T02:00:43Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > 100% correct. The Senate is obligated to hold the vote. Where do you think this obligation comes from? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/125 "2016-05-07T02:07:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is not entirely correct. > > The rhetorical technique is to express an emphatic statement of fact, and, when pressed, claim that it was merely an opinion. But the strong and frequent announcement that sounds like fact has persuasive power, even though it is mere opinion – because it sounds like a claim of fact. I see… and are you having difficulty seeing through such tactics, or merely jumping to the defense of unnamed persons who you think might have difficulty seeing through such tactics? Personally, I find it fairly easy to suss out opinion vs fact in this thread and related threads, or at least I can’t seem to summon enough concern to appoint myself intellectual babysitter of the membership of this board. As a suggestion, assume everything everyone says is opinion, unless they add a relevant cite: 1. This law is unconstitutional. (assume statement of opinion) 2. This law is unconstitutional according the 1997 ruling _Heckle v Jeckle_. (review cite, evaluate authority, possibly conclude statement of historical fact) If you don’t want to, fine. See where that takes you. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/126 "2016-05-07T02:17:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I find it fairly easy to suss out opinion vs fact in this thread and related threads, or at least I can’t seem to summon enough concern to appoint myself intellectual babysitter of the membership of this board. You might be able to tell the difference between fact and opinion, (which is questionable), but your fellow travelers obviously cannot. Look at the post earlier, where a poster said that if enough people believe in something, opinion becomes fact. Life is not a Peter Pan play. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/127 "2016-05-07T02:27:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I see… and are you having difficulty seeing through such tactics, or merely jumping to the defense of unnamed persons who you think might have difficulty seeing through such tactics? > > Personally, I find it fairly easy to suss out opinion vs fact in this thread and related threads, or at least I can’t seem to summon enough concern to appoint myself intellectual babysitter of the membership of this board. > > As a suggestion, assume everything everyone says is opinion, unless they add a relevant cite: > > 1. This law is unconstitutional. (assume statement of opinion) > 2. This law is unconstitutional according the 1997 ruling _Heckle v Jeckle_. (review cite, evaluate authority, possibly conclude statement of historical fact) > If you don’t want to, fine. See where that takes you. I decline your kind suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/128 "2016-05-07T02:29:51Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You might be able to tell the difference between fact and opinion, (which is questionable), but your fellow travelers obviously cannot. > > Look at the post earlier, where a poster said that if enough people believe in something, opinion becomes fact. On examining that post, I find the more plausible analysis is that you missed his point and/or are exaggerating its significance to bolster a negative opinion of the person you’re already writing off as a “fellow traveler”. To the extent that “X tastes bad” can be factual, I daresay if a majority of a population _says_ “X tastes bad”, then that’ll have to do. Big deal. As long as it doesn’t get to the point where X is banned by law just for being bad-tasting (and thus the individuals who disagree with the consensus can produce or acquire it), what difference does it make? Anyway, if you want to question my ability to distinguish fact and opinion, feel free to ask any question you like, and then feel free to modify your opinion of my authority to discuss this or any issue based on my answers (if any), or don’t, as you see fit. I admit fatigue at repeatedly stating the obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/129 "2016-05-07T02:32:20Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > . . . Look at the post earlier, where a poster said that if enough people believe in something, opinion becomes fact. . . . I do want to emphasize that this only works in regimes where opinions are the principle foundation of discussion. “Brussels sprouts are icky.” Such a large majority believes that, that it is a fact in our culture. An even larger majority thinks that eating bugs or worms is icky. It doesn’t serve to make creationism true and evolution false, no matter how large a majority may believe it. But in an Orwellian sense, if the majority is so large that evolution cannot even be taught, and no books on evolution are allowed to be published, then the “cultural fact” becomes unquestioned. As Brecht said, “A shark is not a shark if you cannot prove it is.” (Brecht and Orwell, despite agreeing on much, would probably have detested each other.) ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/130 "2016-05-07T04:21:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I do want to emphasize that this only works in regimes where opinions are the principle foundation of discussion. “Brussels sprouts are icky.” Such a large majority believes that, that it is a fact in our culture. And this is where you are wrong. Even if 99% believe that Brussels sprouts are icky, it’s still an opinion, not a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/131 "2016-05-07T05:40:10Z")
Well, perhaps… But 75 years ago, homosexuality was “mental illness” and today it is not. The “fact” has changed via social beliefs and the formation of a new consensus. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/132 "2016-05-07T05:42:52Z")
What other non-factual things do you believe, just because a majority _feels_ the same way? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/133 "2016-05-07T06:35:21Z")
Well, the example relevant to this thread is that some things can be unconstitutional, even if the legal system says otherwise. “In God We Trust” on the money is a violation of the constitution. To me (and a good many others) that’s a fact. To the workings of the law, it isn’t. But the workings of the law have been in error before, and this is one of those cases. If I take it to court…I lose. But, again, that’s a failure of the system, not of fact. (Before you get too dismissive, remember the unintended consequences of “Religious Freedom” laws. Since IGWT violates my personal religious freedom, do I have the right to excise it from the money I’m carrying?) (I know people who do this…) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/134 "2016-05-07T12:09:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I decline your kind suggestion. I see you also declined to answer the question, so I’ll restate: Are you having trouble distinguishing fact from opinion in this and related threads, or are you concerned about other people who might have such trouble and are speaking on their behalf? I recognize the possibility that neither of these situations is the case, if I get accused of asking a loaded question. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/135 "2016-05-07T12:25:24Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What other non-factual things do you believe, just because a majority _feels_ the same way? Such beliefs are no doubt common in every society that has ever existed, though it wouldn’t just be from the prevailing majority opinion, but also the opinions of the people most influential over your childhood. Religion is the most obvious, but to stay with the food example, liver is another foodstuff that has a longstanding reputation as “icky”. How many people continue to believe this into adulthood and avoid liver? A lot, I’m guessing. Do I have factual evidence of this? No, it’s an impression I have, formed during my own childhood when I occasionally saw liver being used as a punchline. I can cite an example easily enough - the September 1983 issue of _MAD Magazine_ and its parody article _[Knut Rider](http://knightrideronline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18723)_, at the bottom of page 3. For some reason, the joke still tickles me, no doubt why I remembered it for so long. Anyway, I should point out that if you were considering claiming that _you_ believe things solely on evidence that you have personally observed, or something along those lines, save yourself the effort. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/136 "2016-05-07T19:07:02Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, the example relevant to this thread is that some things can be unconstitutional, even if the legal system says otherwise. No. > [@](#): > > “In God We Trust” on the money is a violation of the constitution. No, again. This is Great Debates, where cites are required. So cite that either of your statements are true, please. > [@](#): > > To me (and a good many others) that’s a fact. It’s not a fact, it’s your opinion. Do you know the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/137 "2016-05-07T23:57:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > “In God We Trust” on the money is a violation of the constitution. No it isn’t. Separation of church and state is a doctrine interpreted from the First Amendment by Thomas Jefferson, but in no way is it spelled out. Regardless, it would be rather silly to argue that the use of that phrase has any effect whatsoever on governance. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/138 "2016-05-08T00:14:04Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Right, you might think that, and you’d probably express your **opinion** to that effect. But after the ruling, would you go online and make declarative statements that the either the law in question, or worse, the SCOTUS decision itself were unconstitutional? Probably not, since you’re a reasonable sort. Probably, yes, since I tend to assume my audience is smart enough to understand what statements are meant as opinion, and what statements are meant as objective fact, without me having to explicitly tag them as such. I admit, this is an assumption that has bitten me in the ass before, though. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/139 "2016-05-08T00:14:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > . . . This is Great Debates, where cites are required. So cite that either of your statements are true, please. . . . The Establishment clause. Congress did pass a law regarding an establishment of religion, which the constitution says they may not do. (Also…um…not everything posted in GD must be cited. Lots of opinions get flung here.) ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741/140 "2016-05-08T00:18:40Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The Establishment clause. Congress did pass a law regarding an establishment of religion, which the constitution says they may not do. > > (Also…um…not everything posted in GD must be cited. Lots of opinions get flung here.) The key thing is that you can’t back up **any** of your opinions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-nominations-have-become-political-only-since-bork/753741.md?page=8)