5 ms·

> In all, this video shows exactly how political the justice system is I've spent the past 2 months arguing against people claiming election fraud, and part of

> In all, this video shows exactly how political the justice system is I've spent the past 2 months arguing against people claiming election fraud, and part of my argument has been that our judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical. If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims?

notISaidHe 6y ago
I have the same concerns that I think you're alluding to but the way you phrased that question has me more worried. > ~ Y is not likely because of X You're saying you were basing your argument on the fact that X ("judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical") and now that you're learning that X may not have been true you're wondering what that means about Y. I think it's appropriate to question Y now that you're questioning X but I hope that Y has nothing to do with the decision to question X. It would be an ugly truth that you might have to live with but I hope you don't close your eyes to the reality of X because of what that could mean. Sorry for the overuse of X/Y abstractions but unfortunately I think if we replaced the specifics in this case it would deter from the point I'm trying to point out which is if we think about the what outcomes follow a truth and we disagree with the outcomes (personally invested in arguing against that) then we might choose not to look at the truth. That being said, idk if it's accurate to say the judicial system is not fair and very political
- monoideism 6y ago
  Let me be explicit: so many Americans, including many here on this very post, are tearing down are institutions with as much vigor as they can, all in the service of their partisan cause. With Team Red, it's our election system is corrupt, and our judicial system is corrupt because it ruled the election system wasn't corrupt. Oh, and Congress is corrupt because it's dominated by Team Blue and Team Red traitors. With Team Blue, it's our judicial system is corrupt, for reasons X, Y, and Z. In fact, all our insitutions are corrupt because of systemic Foo or Bar. Oh, and by the way, we're more or less the same as China. With these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact? Because let me assure you, there are plenty of groups itching for a conflict to break out so that they can rebuild society in their image from the rubble. Many of you have no conception of what it's like to live in a conflict or post-conflict zone. We're all privileged as Americans. Not because we're perfect as a country, but because we're a functioning, developed country, or at least we were before this great partisan insanity took hold: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... (click "Animate Data")
  - gretch 6y ago
    Well the solution isn’t to gloss over it for them and just say “no the institutions ARE good.” I mean who is going to actually accept that. If we want the other side to understand, we have to speak to them in a way that they’ll understand it. When you say “with these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact?” I genuinely believe you are doing harm to your own cause because you have shown that you have an ulterior motive to honest seeking of the truth. If I were to believe that parts of the country were truly and deeply corrupt, why would I want to remain intact with that? Don’t you cut tumors out. Also if I didn’t know you personally, I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. I’d be pretty unlikely to consider your arguments at that point.
    - abduhl 6y ago
      How do you square your statements of "If we want the other side to understand, we have to speak to them in a way that they’ll understand it." with "If I were to believe that parts of the country were truly and deeply corrupt, why would I want to remain intact with that? Don’t you cut tumors out." and "I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. I’d be pretty unlikely to consider your arguments at that point."
      - gretch 6y ago
        I was playing the role of many possible counter-arguments to the parent comment. None of the views I expressed were actually representative of me. I was saying 'if I believed...' because I think many people on the other side actually believe what I put out there and if parent wants to make change, he/she'll have to acknowledge it. I personally don't actually believe that the country is irreparably divided and I try to bridge divides when I see it. But I'm sure millions of americans are jaded beyond that point and take the positions I offered in my original comment.
    - monoideism 6y ago
      > Also if I didn’t know you personally, I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. Ha, I'm broke because of serious chronic+acute illnesses that have bankrupted me, and not currently working. So I'd love to see a better medical system. But I've also worked in a conflict/post-conflict zone (several decades ago) so I know how much worse things can get - and that's where we're heading right now unless we can turn things around. And tons of institutions need reform. But mostly not because of corruption, but rather poor incentives and archaic and poorly-thought-out laws. Our system is far from insalvageable. But way to ad hominem, not engaging any further with you.
whiddershins 6y ago
It’s not true, that judges are impartial. They are biased humans with everything that implies, and they additionally are appointed based on their interpretation of the law, which is an intrinsically political act. Does this rise to the level of judges squashing election fraud claims? I have no idea and I’m not sure how to even begin to figure it out.
snowwrestler 6y ago
I think it was your mistake to put so much emphasis on judicial impartiality. Election results were certified, and challenges to them rejected, not because of judge impartiality (which is a quality of the judge), but because the facts of the election are independently verifiable (which is a quality of the world). Judges are required to identify facts and apply the law to those facts. Doing so does not require impartiality, only adherence to reality. That is the judicial basis for rejecting challenges to election results.
- monoideism 6y ago
  > so does not require impartiality, only adherence to reality. Adherence to reality is the better part of impartiality.
btilly 6y ago
If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims? Nothing, you just have to use the right arguments. You don't need to argue that judges are unbiased. You need to argue that judges have uniformly concluded that there is no merit to Trump's arguments, EVEN WHEN those judges should be expected to have a Republican bias. That said, what do I believe to be true? Judges, being human, cannot avoid having biases. But historically both parties have believed in selecting judges who do their best to be objectively neutral while having beliefs about the law that slant their decisions towards the party. The result has been fairly neutral and fair. However our growing polarization has lead to an acceptance of picking more openly biased judges. This is leading to an increased strain on our justice system. Particularly with recent appointees in lower level courts, you cannot expect the judge to be fair. This is much less of an issue with more senior judges because they were first appointed a long time ago when norms about objectivity were stronger. And yes, I worry about the future implied by our continuing increase in bias. Right now a significant fraction of the country believes lies about a stolen election. They will someday come back into political power. When they do, armed with the belief that elections are stolen, they will more openly try to steal them back. Over history, a number of countries created constitutions modeled on ours. The usual end for those countries was increased polarization leading to a breakdown in government, and eventually a declaration of martial law by the President, transforming it into a dictatorship. Nothing prevents what has happened elsewhere, happening here. Our democracy held together this time, but it is eroding. We should be very concerned with the current trend.
gabereiser 6y ago
The judicial system as a whole may be apolitical but there are large pockets of corruption in the south. Pat my back kind of corruption. DeSantis is just following what Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have been doing for over a decade. Appoint someone to a position of power and blackmail them into doing what you want them to, threatening removal of the very position they were just appointed to.
h_anna_h 6y ago
I do not know about US courts being apolitical but they are far from "mostly fair". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rodney_Gilstrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rodney_Gilstrap, etc > and I maintain that it's not What makes you think that it is not?
skissane 6y ago
> If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims? In the case of the recent election, a lot of judges who likely have some degree of pro-Republican bias (such as the conservative majority of the Supreme Court) rejected Trump's claims. The Supreme Court is not impartial in election matters, as demonstrated when they resolved Bush v. Gore on party lines back in 2000. But when the people who are partial towards you reject your case, that's a sign that your case is really bad. If they could find a believable way to let you win, they probably would, but they just can't. So the case against Trump's election claims isn't undermined by the partiality of the judicial system, it is actually strengthened by it.

notISaidHe 6y ago

I have the same concerns that I think you're alluding to but the way you phrased that question has me more worried. > ~ Y is not likely because of X You're saying you were basing your argument on the fact that X ("judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical") and now that you're learning that X may not have been true you're wondering what that means about Y. I think it's appropriate to question Y now that you're questioning X but I hope that Y has nothing to do with the decision to question X. It would be an ugly truth that you might have to live with but I hope you don't close your eyes to the reality of X because of what that could mean. Sorry for the overuse of X/Y abstractions but unfortunately I think if we replaced the specifics in this case it would deter from the point I'm trying to point out which is if we think about the what outcomes follow a truth and we disagree with the outcomes (personally invested in arguing against that) then we might choose not to look at the truth. That being said, idk if it's accurate to say the judicial system is not fair and very political

monoideism 6y ago
Let me be explicit: so many Americans, including many here on this very post, are tearing down are institutions with as much vigor as they can, all in the service of their partisan cause. With Team Red, it's our election system is corrupt, and our judicial system is corrupt because it ruled the election system wasn't corrupt. Oh, and Congress is corrupt because it's dominated by Team Blue and Team Red traitors. With Team Blue, it's our judicial system is corrupt, for reasons X, Y, and Z. In fact, all our insitutions are corrupt because of systemic Foo or Bar. Oh, and by the way, we're more or less the same as China. With these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact? Because let me assure you, there are plenty of groups itching for a conflict to break out so that they can rebuild society in their image from the rubble. Many of you have no conception of what it's like to live in a conflict or post-conflict zone. We're all privileged as Americans. Not because we're perfect as a country, but because we're a functioning, developed country, or at least we were before this great partisan insanity took hold: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... (click "Animate Data")
- gretch 6y ago
  Well the solution isn’t to gloss over it for them and just say “no the institutions ARE good.” I mean who is going to actually accept that. If we want the other side to understand, we have to speak to them in a way that they’ll understand it. When you say “with these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact?” I genuinely believe you are doing harm to your own cause because you have shown that you have an ulterior motive to honest seeking of the truth. If I were to believe that parts of the country were truly and deeply corrupt, why would I want to remain intact with that? Don’t you cut tumors out. Also if I didn’t know you personally, I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. I’d be pretty unlikely to consider your arguments at that point.
  - abduhl 6y ago
    How do you square your statements of "If we want the other side to understand, we have to speak to them in a way that they’ll understand it." with "If I were to believe that parts of the country were truly and deeply corrupt, why would I want to remain intact with that? Don’t you cut tumors out." and "I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. I’d be pretty unlikely to consider your arguments at that point."
    - gretch 6y ago
      I was playing the role of many possible counter-arguments to the parent comment. None of the views I expressed were actually representative of me. I was saying 'if I believed...' because I think many people on the other side actually believe what I put out there and if parent wants to make change, he/she'll have to acknowledge it. I personally don't actually believe that the country is irreparably divided and I try to bridge divides when I see it. But I'm sure millions of americans are jaded beyond that point and take the positions I offered in my original comment.
  - monoideism 6y ago
    > Also if I didn’t know you personally, I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. Ha, I'm broke because of serious chronic+acute illnesses that have bankrupted me, and not currently working. So I'd love to see a better medical system. But I've also worked in a conflict/post-conflict zone (several decades ago) so I know how much worse things can get - and that's where we're heading right now unless we can turn things around. And tons of institutions need reform. But mostly not because of corruption, but rather poor incentives and archaic and poorly-thought-out laws. Our system is far from insalvageable. But way to ad hominem, not engaging any further with you.

whiddershins 6y ago

It’s not true, that judges are impartial. They are biased humans with everything that implies, and they additionally are appointed based on their interpretation of the law, which is an intrinsically political act. Does this rise to the level of judges squashing election fraud claims? I have no idea and I’m not sure how to even begin to figure it out.

snowwrestler 6y ago

I think it was your mistake to put so much emphasis on judicial impartiality. Election results were certified, and challenges to them rejected, not because of judge impartiality (which is a quality of the judge), but because the facts of the election are independently verifiable (which is a quality of the world). Judges are required to identify facts and apply the law to those facts. Doing so does not require impartiality, only adherence to reality. That is the judicial basis for rejecting challenges to election results.

monoideism 6y ago
> so does not require impartiality, only adherence to reality. Adherence to reality is the better part of impartiality.

btilly 6y ago

If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims? Nothing, you just have to use the right arguments. You don't need to argue that judges are unbiased. You need to argue that judges have uniformly concluded that there is no merit to Trump's arguments, EVEN WHEN those judges should be expected to have a Republican bias. That said, what do I believe to be true? Judges, being human, cannot avoid having biases. But historically both parties have believed in selecting judges who do their best to be objectively neutral while having beliefs about the law that slant their decisions towards the party. The result has been fairly neutral and fair. However our growing polarization has lead to an acceptance of picking more openly biased judges. This is leading to an increased strain on our justice system. Particularly with recent appointees in lower level courts, you cannot expect the judge to be fair. This is much less of an issue with more senior judges because they were first appointed a long time ago when norms about objectivity were stronger. And yes, I worry about the future implied by our continuing increase in bias. Right now a significant fraction of the country believes lies about a stolen election. They will someday come back into political power. When they do, armed with the belief that elections are stolen, they will more openly try to steal them back. Over history, a number of countries created constitutions modeled on ours. The usual end for those countries was increased polarization leading to a breakdown in government, and eventually a declaration of martial law by the President, transforming it into a dictatorship. Nothing prevents what has happened elsewhere, happening here. Our democracy held together this time, but it is eroding. We should be very concerned with the current trend.

gabereiser 6y ago

The judicial system as a whole may be apolitical but there are large pockets of corruption in the south. Pat my back kind of corruption. DeSantis is just following what Rick Scott and Marco Rubio have been doing for over a decade. Appoint someone to a position of power and blackmail them into doing what you want them to, threatening removal of the very position they were just appointed to.

h_anna_h 6y ago

I do not know about US courts being apolitical but they are far from "mostly fair". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rodney_Gilstrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rodney_Gilstrap, etc > and I maintain that it's not What makes you think that it is not?

skissane 6y ago

> If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims? In the case of the recent election, a lot of judges who likely have some degree of pro-Republican bias (such as the conservative majority of the Supreme Court) rejected Trump's claims. The Supreme Court is not impartial in election matters, as demonstrated when they resolved Bush v. Gore on party lines back in 2000. But when the people who are partial towards you reject your case, that's a sign that your case is really bad. If they could find a believable way to let you win, they probably would, but they just can't. So the case against Trump's election claims isn't undermined by the partiality of the judicial system, it is actually strengthened by it.