3 ms·

I don't think it would. The justices are smart people, they know full well the precedent they have set can be used by white supremacists et al. Their decision e

I don't think it would. The justices are smart people, they know full well the precedent they have set can be used by white supremacists et al. Their decision explicitly affirms that hate speech is not exempt from First Amendment protections. As an aside, this is why the judicial system is probably my favorite branch of government. Debates in Congress are not real debates; congressman are using them to score political points, not convince the other side of their argument. Same with the executive branch, it's all about re-election which means they have to concern themselves with the optics of their actions. Only in the judicial branch do we at least try to make decisions based on reason and rational argument. It's how we got legal interracial marriage at a time when something like 90% of the population thought it was immoral. The justices don't care about the optics of the case, only the facts, because establishing a precedence means these decisions can have broad consequences.

headcanon 9y ago
That's a great point. I'm glad as well that we have at least one part of government that is able to keep a head on their shoulders.
CPLX 9y ago
> The justices don't care about the optics of the case, only the facts Well... sort of. In reality they do a complicated and delicate balancing of the optics, practical effects, and ivory tower type rationality. Though I think your point, drawing a contrast, still stands up quite well.
kbutler 9y ago
That insulation from politics is the same rationale for monarchy/hereditary positions/equal-representation-in-senate/electoral college. When we're in the victorious minority, we like insulation from direct majority rule, but when we're in the disgruntled majority, those restrictions on democracy aren't quite as attractive.
- openasocket 9y ago
  Insulation from politics isn't really why I like the judiciary. It's that their entire basis for influence requires a line of reasoning and rational thought. Having electable judges is to some degree orthogonal to the issue.
ErikVandeWater 9y ago
Lots of people in this thread are equating smarts to a lack of inherent human bias. I agree that there is a relationship there, but if you read enough cases, you get the feeling they often stretch to get to the conclusion they had (knowingly or unknowingly) predetermined.
- openasocket 9y ago
  Oh justices are absolutely biased, it's impossible to have a human being who isn't. The point is that the justices have to defend their decision with some sort of rational argument, while congressman simply vote yay or nay on a bill without qualifiers or precedent being set.

headcanon 9y ago

That's a great point. I'm glad as well that we have at least one part of government that is able to keep a head on their shoulders.

CPLX 9y ago

> The justices don't care about the optics of the case, only the facts Well... sort of. In reality they do a complicated and delicate balancing of the optics, practical effects, and ivory tower type rationality. Though I think your point, drawing a contrast, still stands up quite well.

kbutler 9y ago

That insulation from politics is the same rationale for monarchy/hereditary positions/equal-representation-in-senate/electoral college. When we're in the victorious minority, we like insulation from direct majority rule, but when we're in the disgruntled majority, those restrictions on democracy aren't quite as attractive.

openasocket 9y ago
Insulation from politics isn't really why I like the judiciary. It's that their entire basis for influence requires a line of reasoning and rational thought. Having electable judges is to some degree orthogonal to the issue.

ErikVandeWater 9y ago

Lots of people in this thread are equating smarts to a lack of inherent human bias. I agree that there is a relationship there, but if you read enough cases, you get the feeling they often stretch to get to the conclusion they had (knowingly or unknowingly) predetermined.

openasocket 9y ago
Oh justices are absolutely biased, it's impossible to have a human being who isn't. The point is that the justices have to defend their decision with some sort of rational argument, while congressman simply vote yay or nay on a bill without qualifiers or precedent being set.