3 ms·

In this decision, there were three judges: > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and in

In this decision, there were three judges: > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and in which Judge Rushing [Trump] joined as to Part II.B.2 and C. > Judge Motz [Clinton] wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rushing [Trump] wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals... Three judges from three administrations and both parties, all in agreement and disagreement. It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent.

Supermancho 5y ago
> It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent. There was dissent because it's not about applying law and precedent, but interpretation and choosing to apply or not. > that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. Because the court is subject to the population's prevailing opinion, in part. As public opinion shifts, so do courts (over longer cycles ofc). > The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions Wrong on all counts, around the world, throughout time. Pointing to concepts of "court impartiality" is like arguing about "pure democracy", discounting the human behavior when discussing the reality, is not compelling. Philosophers since (at least) Plato have tried to theorize a system for impartial philosopher kings, much less declare a profession to point to and say "that person is completely objective". https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-the-republic-and-why-philosophers-should-rule/ https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-...

Supermancho 5y ago

> It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent. There was dissent because it's not about applying law and precedent, but interpretation and choosing to apply or not. > that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. Because the court is subject to the population's prevailing opinion, in part. As public opinion shifts, so do courts (over longer cycles ofc). > The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions Wrong on all counts, around the world, throughout time. Pointing to concepts of "court impartiality" is like arguing about "pure democracy", discounting the human behavior when discussing the reality, is not compelling. Philosophers since (at least) Plato have tried to theorize a system for impartial philosopher kings, much less declare a profession to point to and say "that person is completely objective". https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-the-republic-and-why-philosophers-should-rule/ https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-...