4 ms·

This is the most insane comment I've read in a long time, no offense to you personally. Being friends is orthogonal, and should be orthogonal to one's judgement

This is the most insane comment I've read in a long time, no offense to you personally. Being friends is orthogonal, and should be orthogonal to one's judgement and their duty as a judge. The entire world would be a better place if they do not follow the argument presented here.

roenxi 6y ago
You're not going to like the rest of the American political and justice system. The entire process is based on purposefully creating opposing and disagreeable forces. The whole thing was clearly created on a principle of opposing friendships between powerful forces.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  I don't think this is true. In the past people have reached across the aisle to compromise and collaborate successfully. If your position is right, doesn't that contradict the continued existence of the United States? What's "United" about the US if it breaks down into a bunch of hostile warring tribes?
- Fellshard 6y ago
  A true friendship is not necessarily based on mutually-beneficial backroom deals. A sound friendship would have each party seeking to uphold and maintain the integrity of one another. To do otherwise is to reveal that it is not friendship, but rather opportunism, cronyism, or convenience - none of which have the stability or moral foundation of true friendship.
- function_seven 6y ago
  The Supreme Court is not just another legislative branch. But that being said, have you seen how many decisions are 5-4? Or 6-3, 7-2? It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court. It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. It's how we stay one cohesive nation, instead of warring factions.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Possible, yes. Preferable, sure. Most likely outcome, no. The Supreme Court isn't a coffee club. The justices being on their toes and constantly being challenged by opposing ideas will lead to better outcomes. Friendship is a process of synchronisation, it sits in opposition to the best outcome for the system. And yes, I pay a lot of attention to Supreme Court decisions.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Friendship is the process of learning about and recognizing the value of a human being that usually leads to a greater comprehension of that persons life and views not a synchronizing of those views.
  - juniper_strong 6y ago
    "since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases" -Washington Post
    - sukilot 6y ago
      This is likely due to law getting far more specific over the decades, with less room for interpretation.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        Having followed a lot of the recent SCOTUS cases, I can say that if you think the law is leaving less room for interpretation nowadays, you are sorely mistaken. Look up the "Armed Career Criminal Act"--it's an example of what seems like it ought to be a simple matter of interpretation (look! it defines "violent felon"!) into a headache (okay, the person has to have committed a crime whose state-level common-law interpretation in 1984 had to have required at least this much force, and I'm sure I'm still missing some details there).

roenxi 6y ago

You're not going to like the rest of the American political and justice system. The entire process is based on purposefully creating opposing and disagreeable forces. The whole thing was clearly created on a principle of opposing friendships between powerful forces.

landryraccoon 6y ago
I don't think this is true. In the past people have reached across the aisle to compromise and collaborate successfully. If your position is right, doesn't that contradict the continued existence of the United States? What's "United" about the US if it breaks down into a bunch of hostile warring tribes?
Fellshard 6y ago
A true friendship is not necessarily based on mutually-beneficial backroom deals. A sound friendship would have each party seeking to uphold and maintain the integrity of one another. To do otherwise is to reveal that it is not friendship, but rather opportunism, cronyism, or convenience - none of which have the stability or moral foundation of true friendship.
function_seven 6y ago
The Supreme Court is not just another legislative branch. But that being said, have you seen how many decisions are 5-4? Or 6-3, 7-2? It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court. It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. It's how we stay one cohesive nation, instead of warring factions.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Possible, yes. Preferable, sure. Most likely outcome, no. The Supreme Court isn't a coffee club. The justices being on their toes and constantly being challenged by opposing ideas will lead to better outcomes. Friendship is a process of synchronisation, it sits in opposition to the best outcome for the system. And yes, I pay a lot of attention to Supreme Court decisions.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Friendship is the process of learning about and recognizing the value of a human being that usually leads to a greater comprehension of that persons life and views not a synchronizing of those views.
- juniper_strong 6y ago
  "since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases" -Washington Post
  - sukilot 6y ago
    This is likely due to law getting far more specific over the decades, with less room for interpretation.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      Having followed a lot of the recent SCOTUS cases, I can say that if you think the law is leaving less room for interpretation nowadays, you are sorely mistaken. Look up the "Armed Career Criminal Act"--it's an example of what seems like it ought to be a simple matter of interpretation (look! it defines "violent felon"!) into a headache (okay, the person has to have committed a crime whose state-level common-law interpretation in 1984 had to have required at least this much force, and I'm sure I'm still missing some details there).