Our country is now fighting to remain a democracy. You are bringing a pen knife to a gun fight. When the going gets tough, we had better bring a howitzer.
I am glad you asked. My howitzer would be holding Donald Trump accountable for his many illegal actions, to the full extent of the law. The Justice Dept. must start enforcing the law. He must be held responsible for his actions.
To date The Justice Dept. has been totally ineffective. I am sure they have the howitzer.
I do jest. The "Justice Dept." is, as you say, corrupt and have failed democracy. That is why we are now living in an Autocratic Fascist state.
The only effective defense against them has been breached. Unless they find the gonads to stand up and fight for democracy, hope for democracy in America is, in my opinion, dead, as will be the vote.
Around 16:05--16:20 in the video, Professor Litman says of the conservative Supreme Court justices "They cannot be trusted to update their priors." For those unfamiliar with probability and statistics, this is a phrase borrowed from Bayesian statistics. In the video, it can be taken to mean "They cannot be trusted to revise their (prior) beliefs in light of new information."
The SC is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and rule of law, especially in the gray areas when jurisprudence becomes so critical. The justices may be human, but the mindsets of at least two of them lack that jurisprudence and scholarly depth which is easily corrupted when the basic independence bestowed on them is abused.
Every Supreme Court justice brings her or his ideology into almost every decision. The "originalist" and "textualist" are two current ideologies that are diametrically opposed. Both of them are rational positions, and both sides support America's liberal Democracy.
Haven't read the book. But, when all you have is a penknife, that's what you bring to the fight. Few of us have anything close to a howitzer. I'm grateful she brings the penknife (and wields it skillfully).
I don't see this court as driven by pragmatism; unless the word means "narrow self interest."
Yes, ideology motivates most humans in most cases. I value democracy. That is ideology at work. The key is being willing to dissect my ideology, and enable myself to "update [my] priors" in a thoughtful way intended to serve "justice for all." That willingness is seriously lacking with our current court.
SCOTUS is an ideological driven court not a court ruled by pragmatism. We need jurists who are motivated by the rule of law.
We have jurists that believe in the Rule of Law. We need more.
We need to impeach Alilto and Thomas!
For me the Citizens United decision of 2011 did incredible damage to our country. We are living with money essentially buying our politicians.
Our country is now fighting to remain a democracy. You are bringing a pen knife to a gun fight. When the going gets tough, we had better bring a howitzer.
And what exactly would that howitzer look like, in your view? I’m serious.
I am glad you asked. My howitzer would be holding Donald Trump accountable for his many illegal actions, to the full extent of the law. The Justice Dept. must start enforcing the law. He must be held responsible for his actions.
To date The Justice Dept. has been totally ineffective. I am sure they have the howitzer.
USE IT!
You mean the Justice Dept that behaves like trump's personal law firm? That "justice" department? Surely you jest.
I do jest. The "Justice Dept." is, as you say, corrupt and have failed democracy. That is why we are now living in an Autocratic Fascist state.
The only effective defense against them has been breached. Unless they find the gonads to stand up and fight for democracy, hope for democracy in America is, in my opinion, dead, as will be the vote.
Agree with you, but have the same question as Pam Birkenfeld.
Around 16:05--16:20 in the video, Professor Litman says of the conservative Supreme Court justices "They cannot be trusted to update their priors." For those unfamiliar with probability and statistics, this is a phrase borrowed from Bayesian statistics. In the video, it can be taken to mean "They cannot be trusted to revise their (prior) beliefs in light of new information."
What a fascinating if sobering conversation. Thank you Contrarian and Professor Litman.
I can think of a number of friends who would want to read this book.
The SC is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and rule of law, especially in the gray areas when jurisprudence becomes so critical. The justices may be human, but the mindsets of at least two of them lack that jurisprudence and scholarly depth which is easily corrupted when the basic independence bestowed on them is abused.
Every vote that Alito and Thomas cast has been paid for by a plutocrat. There words are of no consequence.
Every Supreme Court justice brings her or his ideology into almost every decision. The "originalist" and "textualist" are two current ideologies that are diametrically opposed. Both of them are rational positions, and both sides support America's liberal Democracy.
Haven't read the book. But, when all you have is a penknife, that's what you bring to the fight. Few of us have anything close to a howitzer. I'm grateful she brings the penknife (and wields it skillfully).
I don't see this court as driven by pragmatism; unless the word means "narrow self interest."
Yes, ideology motivates most humans in most cases. I value democracy. That is ideology at work. The key is being willing to dissect my ideology, and enable myself to "update [my] priors" in a thoughtful way intended to serve "justice for all." That willingness is seriously lacking with our current court.