8 ms·

I think the author may be getting a bit too defensive of his work here - not that he doesn't have a right to defend it, but he may be seeing attacks on it where

I think the author may be getting a bit too defensive of his work here - not that he doesn't have a right to defend it, but he may be seeing attacks on it where they don't really exist. It's exceedingly common for Supreme Court justices to ask controversial questions they think/know others will have, regardless of their own opinions - many times you will see them ask questions or dig in to areas that are in direct contrast to their leanings. The reasons for this are two-fold. First, these are Supreme Court Justices; their opinions become law, and they have a responsibility to understand both sides on an argument. Second, they understand that it's best for the court and the country if controversial/questionable things are brought up and addressed in session rather than debated endlessly after their decisions are issued. In short, don't read too much in to what questions the justices ask, or what aspects of a case they question...

relaunched 9y ago
Having one's work discussed by the supreme court is pretty incredible. It might just be a way to continue the conversation and raise awareness of what is undoubtedly a pretty obscure subject, that you've dedicated a significant part of your life to. In that respect, "there were some misconceptions" seems to be the link-bait, white washed with integrity and civility.
djtriptych 9y ago
This is sort of a silly argument. While the average/composite justice might ask devil's advocate questions, most the coverage of this issue is also taking into account the individual personalities and histories of the folks asking the questions. So, it means something different if Justice Ginsburg asks a question vs Justice Roberts. In the age of Trump, I think it's far more dangerous to assume politicians and judges don't really mean what they say, than for this author to vigorously defend his work and opinion. Having read the article, it's clear that Alito represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the author's research. It would be irresponsible for him not to respond and clarify.
- eradicatethots 9y ago
  Probably it’s the job of whoever he was asking to correct him, not he himself?
  - djtriptych 9y ago
    lol this username.
stevenwoo 9y ago
On examination of the evidence, the motive for a questioning supreme court justice is leaning to supporting the other side. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-justice-kennedys-silence-means-for-the-future-of-gerrymandering/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-justice-kennedys-s...
- jessriedel 9y ago
  It's a surprisingly modest lean: > That data shows that Kennedy is no different from the rest of the court: You don’t want to be on the receiving end of his questions. When Kennedy votes for the respondent (which would be the Wisconsin Democrats, in this case) he directs 93.3 words to them (57.5 percent of his speech). When he votes against the respondent, he directs 102.0 words to them (61.1 percent of his speech).
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    I was chose lean instead of favor purposefully! But Kennedy's zero/all the words ratio for this case may tip his hand.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      > Historically, he directed zero words toward the party he went on to vote for 272 times, out of 1,022 cases in this data set. He directed zero words toward the party he wound up voting against only 177 times. So about a 60%-40% split when he has zero words. It does look like he is leaning in favor of the Wisconsin Democrats, but still far from a sure thing.
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      Yep, I wasn't suggesting your summary was inaccurate. I just found it really interesting and wanted to share.
Tasboo 9y ago
The questions a justice asks can often be an indication of where they stand on an issue. It's a way for them to tell the other justices their beliefs. If Alito is spouting off misleading or incorrect facts, then this person should feel compelled to defend their work.
- sukilot 9y ago
  That's true for the statements justices make, not the questions. The two appear together in oral arguments
  - marnett 9y ago
    That's not necessarily true. Justices most certainly ask questions they may personally not need clarifying on in order to plant the question in their colleagues' mind. Oral argument , historically and currently, is still an arena for Justices to share opinions and try to influence one another.
dcow 9y ago
This is, in a nutshell, both why I love hackernews and what's so frustrating about discussing a topic these days. It's impossible to explore something you may totally disagree with without people generally reducing that exploration to a proxy for your worldview and consequently making character judgements or finding a way to get offended to the point where the identity politics card gets played and you get labeled a bigot for some conclusion you never supported but was obviously present in the undercurrents of your questions. The Supreme Court judges aren't special in that respect. Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. The way you handle input into your personal biological process is your responsibility not mine. And society does not exist to protect you from malicious input, although you are free to choose networks where the chances frequency of receiving such input is relatively low.
- cbhl 9y ago
  This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. If you are genuinely seeking new information, great! But you should do your homework first, which includes finding the right person to ask the question to.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    > This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. I am confused on how this would work in practice. What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking?
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Loaded ones, eg: "Why should I pay for taxes to support single mothers just so black men don't have to pay child support?" Now, I think we should still encourage them to ask those kinds of questions, because I believe in an open and liberal society and that the best reaction to poor thinking is to address it directly, that the answer to speech I don't like is more speech. But it's pretty easy for some really racist opinions about others to hide behind questions like that. Of course, there are also some uncomfortable truths in those questions which cause us to silence them, such as -- "Are the disparaties we see in racial groups purely the effect of lingering racial bias, or is there a modern cultural component that happens to align with racial groups and perpetuates the inequality?" (And in this case -- the more general, is there a disparity in the fatherhood rates that correlates with racial grouping?) Ed: I think the people downvoting proved someone upthread's point -- I literally provided an example I've heard of such a question and got downvoted for providing facts to a discussion.
maxxxxx 9y ago
The same happens often when you report something to top management. I have been in meetings where the top guys took something I wrote and drew the totally wrong conclusions without me having the opportunity to clarify. It can be frustrating but i guess that's how hierarchical organizations work.
lern_too_spel 9y ago
It becomes an issue if the justice writes this misunderstanding of the research into their opinion. I think the researcher is merely trying to get their story out ahead of that possibility, just in case.
illumin8 9y ago
The problem is that a supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, with a conservative agenda, is cherry-picking older papers that relied on research from 1970-1990, before partisan gerrymandering really picked up steam, and using that to try and muddle the waters. Supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial - this is why the statue of justice has a blindfold on. It's frankly abhorrent that we have such partisan hacks in this role.

relaunched 9y ago

Having one's work discussed by the supreme court is pretty incredible. It might just be a way to continue the conversation and raise awareness of what is undoubtedly a pretty obscure subject, that you've dedicated a significant part of your life to. In that respect, "there were some misconceptions" seems to be the link-bait, white washed with integrity and civility.

djtriptych 9y ago

This is sort of a silly argument. While the average/composite justice might ask devil's advocate questions, most the coverage of this issue is also taking into account the individual personalities and histories of the folks asking the questions. So, it means something different if Justice Ginsburg asks a question vs Justice Roberts. In the age of Trump, I think it's far more dangerous to assume politicians and judges don't really mean what they say, than for this author to vigorously defend his work and opinion. Having read the article, it's clear that Alito represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the author's research. It would be irresponsible for him not to respond and clarify.

eradicatethots 9y ago
Probably it’s the job of whoever he was asking to correct him, not he himself?
- djtriptych 9y ago
  lol this username.

stevenwoo 9y ago

On examination of the evidence, the motive for a questioning supreme court justice is leaning to supporting the other side. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-justice-kennedys-silence-means-for-the-future-of-gerrymandering/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-justice-kennedys-s...

jessriedel 9y ago
It's a surprisingly modest lean: > That data shows that Kennedy is no different from the rest of the court: You don’t want to be on the receiving end of his questions. When Kennedy votes for the respondent (which would be the Wisconsin Democrats, in this case) he directs 93.3 words to them (57.5 percent of his speech). When he votes against the respondent, he directs 102.0 words to them (61.1 percent of his speech).
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  I was chose lean instead of favor purposefully! But Kennedy's zero/all the words ratio for this case may tip his hand.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    > Historically, he directed zero words toward the party he went on to vote for 272 times, out of 1,022 cases in this data set. He directed zero words toward the party he wound up voting against only 177 times. So about a 60%-40% split when he has zero words. It does look like he is leaning in favor of the Wisconsin Democrats, but still far from a sure thing.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    Yep, I wasn't suggesting your summary was inaccurate. I just found it really interesting and wanted to share.

Tasboo 9y ago

The questions a justice asks can often be an indication of where they stand on an issue. It's a way for them to tell the other justices their beliefs. If Alito is spouting off misleading or incorrect facts, then this person should feel compelled to defend their work.

sukilot 9y ago
That's true for the statements justices make, not the questions. The two appear together in oral arguments
- marnett 9y ago
  That's not necessarily true. Justices most certainly ask questions they may personally not need clarifying on in order to plant the question in their colleagues' mind. Oral argument , historically and currently, is still an arena for Justices to share opinions and try to influence one another.

dcow 9y ago

This is, in a nutshell, both why I love hackernews and what's so frustrating about discussing a topic these days. It's impossible to explore something you may totally disagree with without people generally reducing that exploration to a proxy for your worldview and consequently making character judgements or finding a way to get offended to the point where the identity politics card gets played and you get labeled a bigot for some conclusion you never supported but was obviously present in the undercurrents of your questions. The Supreme Court judges aren't special in that respect. Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. The way you handle input into your personal biological process is your responsibility not mine. And society does not exist to protect you from malicious input, although you are free to choose networks where the chances frequency of receiving such input is relatively low.

cbhl 9y ago
This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. If you are genuinely seeking new information, great! But you should do your homework first, which includes finding the right person to ask the question to.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  > This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. I am confused on how this would work in practice. What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking?
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Loaded ones, eg: "Why should I pay for taxes to support single mothers just so black men don't have to pay child support?" Now, I think we should still encourage them to ask those kinds of questions, because I believe in an open and liberal society and that the best reaction to poor thinking is to address it directly, that the answer to speech I don't like is more speech. But it's pretty easy for some really racist opinions about others to hide behind questions like that. Of course, there are also some uncomfortable truths in those questions which cause us to silence them, such as -- "Are the disparaties we see in racial groups purely the effect of lingering racial bias, or is there a modern cultural component that happens to align with racial groups and perpetuates the inequality?" (And in this case -- the more general, is there a disparity in the fatherhood rates that correlates with racial grouping?) Ed: I think the people downvoting proved someone upthread's point -- I literally provided an example I've heard of such a question and got downvoted for providing facts to a discussion.

maxxxxx 9y ago

The same happens often when you report something to top management. I have been in meetings where the top guys took something I wrote and drew the totally wrong conclusions without me having the opportunity to clarify. It can be frustrating but i guess that's how hierarchical organizations work.

lern_too_spel 9y ago

It becomes an issue if the justice writes this misunderstanding of the research into their opinion. I think the researcher is merely trying to get their story out ahead of that possibility, just in case.

illumin8 9y ago

The problem is that a supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, with a conservative agenda, is cherry-picking older papers that relied on research from 1970-1990, before partisan gerrymandering really picked up steam, and using that to try and muddle the waters. Supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial - this is why the statue of justice has a blindfold on. It's frankly abhorrent that we have such partisan hacks in this role.