5 ms·

No. The answer is mostly that I've seen Rayiner discuss Roe before in years prior, and had a weak inkling recollection that his statements had changed. An HN se

No. The answer is mostly that I've seen Rayiner discuss Roe before in years prior, and had a weak inkling recollection that his statements had changed. An HN search for "rayiner roe overturn" I think it was got to things pretty quickly. For what it's worth (mostly in response to other comments), I don't think he's being disingenuous here, I think there's just a deep disagreement about values. In another thread, he says: > As a foreigner, what I admire most about Americans is their ability to dispassionately accept the results of legal procedures. I truly think that’s what is responsible for the success of America and England before it. We have people who have high minded principles and notions of justice in Bangladesh. That’s not special. What we lack is a populace that will accept even monumental decisions contrary to what they wanted and move on. And that’s what I fear is being eroded. Charitably, I think, this is "Americans are willing to accept the rule of law", which is perhaps true. Uncharitably, it's something like "Americans are privileged and/or apathetic enough that even as the law wildly vacillates, they don't care to act when their rights are impugned." I also don't think it's true, given the long history of protest and sometimes violence in response to legal proceedings (Shay's Rebellion, the Civil War, anti-Abortion violence and murders in the '90s and today, etc.). But even taking it as true, I think there's a requirement that to respect the (appellate) judiciary we need to respect that the system is at least somewhat apolitical. I don't mean that judges aren't conservative or liberal, they obviously will be, but the actions of the Federalist Society, which preaches and advocates for a very particular judicial philosophy is, to many, a violation of the social contract that allows us to respect the court. I think it's easy for someone who is a lawyer, especially an appellate lawyer to have "the institution" go to their head, to an extent. And I think that's what I'm seeing here: what the court is doing must be justified not in particular because rayiner agrees with it (though he does), but because the court cannot be questioned. He takes it as a given that the institution must be respected by virtue of what it is. I don't buy that, I think the institution needs to earn its legitimacy, and when you have justices doing what is charitably described as misleading Congress and the American people, and uncharitably described as perjury, well, it's difficult to see why the office remains deserving of respect.

rayiner 4y ago
> Charitably, I think, this is "Americans are willing to accept the rule of law", which is perhaps true. Yes, that’s what I mean. > I also don't think it's true, given the long history of protest and sometimes violence in response to legal proceedings (Shay's Rebellion, the Civil War, anti-Abortion violence and murders in the '90s and today, etc.). It’s relative. Americans are incredibly orderly compared to say Bangladeshis, where there are violent protests after every election. > I don't mean that judges aren't conservative or liberal, they obviously will be, but the actions of the Federalist Society, which preaches and advocates for a very particular judicial philosophy is, to many, a violation of the social contract that allows us to respect the court. How is it a violation of the social contract to advocate for reading the Constitution the same way we read any other written document? How is that worse than say law schools, which vigorously advocate reading the Constitution as loose guidelines to guide elite lawyers in dispensing Justice according to their own world views. That’s exactly what Roe was, seven highly educated white men overturning the will of the people based not on law, but on their personal notions of justice. > I think it's easy for someone who is a lawyer, especially an appellate lawyer to have "the institution" go to their head, to an extent. I respect the institution because I’m a foreigner who comes from a country where respect for institutions is conditional. I have a deep veneration for societies where people reflexively trust institution even when they’re in the losing end of a decision. A court could order a British person to jump off a bridge and they’d do it! And I’m terrified of what I’m seeing in the US. There’s always been unruly mobs, but now elites are egging them on. Your accusations of “perjury” are exactly the problem I’m highlighting. Nobody perjured themselves. They said Roe was precedent, which it is. Precedent can be overruled—and there are clear guidelines for when to do so and Roe fit the bill on a lot of the factors. To say otherwise is to rely on the ignorance of the general public in an effort to delegitimize the institution in their eyes, and that’s irresponsible.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > How is it a violation of the social contract to advocate for reading the Constitution the same way we read any other written document? This is the wrong question. The constitution doesn't matter. It's deeply flawed (whatever your opinion on the second amendment, that what exactly it means is so deeply up for debate, and has been for 100+ years, goes to show that the document is flawed as a legal instrument!), but not going to change without bloodshed. People respect the rule of law, have faith in their institutions, because they feel represented and respected and empowered. But the reasons for that faith is eroding as we see that so many of our institutions are biased towards conservatives or conservative demographics. It is increasingly difficult to have faith in a democratic institution that doesn't provide equal representation. Respect for an institution is conditional! It must be! We should not respect a president who does illegal things just because they are the president, we should impeach them! The same is true of a court, it is not reasonable to to respect it if it fails to act consistently and, to many, the courts rulings are inconsistent. Perhaps they make sense to you, a constitutional lawyer who has two or three degrees and decade of ~indoctrination~ education on this particular subject, but to those normal people out here, a group of 9 (or well 6) of the most elite of the elites (lifetime appointments!) sit in their ivory tower and say "you need private guns to deal with unelected tyrants" (to quote a tweet I saw earlier), while rolling back life-saving policies and threatening others. On the left, you have to do a huge amount of work to get people to vote, not because they don't care, but because they're so disillusioned by their vote mattering, and that sentiment grows truer and truer! So why is it a violation of the social contract? Because the social contract is a fair and representative government. It is democracy with checks and balances. The less the government does that, the less people are going to want it. And the problem is that the SC is, or was, in a pretty crappy position: the constitution is flawed and encourages this inequality, but no one's going to change it because people (and here I'll absolutely call you out as an example!) venerate it far too much. And the next amendment will be written in blood. So the court can either let constitutional interpretation live and follow the will of the people, and make them feel represented, or it can not make any attempt to represent the people and only represent the law, and there's some merit in that too, but it's going to foment unrest. So the issue you're facing is that the way you want the court to work fails to respect the people, and so they fail to respect it.

rayiner 4y ago

> Charitably, I think, this is "Americans are willing to accept the rule of law", which is perhaps true. Yes, that’s what I mean. > I also don't think it's true, given the long history of protest and sometimes violence in response to legal proceedings (Shay's Rebellion, the Civil War, anti-Abortion violence and murders in the '90s and today, etc.). It’s relative. Americans are incredibly orderly compared to say Bangladeshis, where there are violent protests after every election. > I don't mean that judges aren't conservative or liberal, they obviously will be, but the actions of the Federalist Society, which preaches and advocates for a very particular judicial philosophy is, to many, a violation of the social contract that allows us to respect the court. How is it a violation of the social contract to advocate for reading the Constitution the same way we read any other written document? How is that worse than say law schools, which vigorously advocate reading the Constitution as loose guidelines to guide elite lawyers in dispensing Justice according to their own world views. That’s exactly what Roe was, seven highly educated white men overturning the will of the people based not on law, but on their personal notions of justice. > I think it's easy for someone who is a lawyer, especially an appellate lawyer to have "the institution" go to their head, to an extent. I respect the institution because I’m a foreigner who comes from a country where respect for institutions is conditional. I have a deep veneration for societies where people reflexively trust institution even when they’re in the losing end of a decision. A court could order a British person to jump off a bridge and they’d do it! And I’m terrified of what I’m seeing in the US. There’s always been unruly mobs, but now elites are egging them on. Your accusations of “perjury” are exactly the problem I’m highlighting. Nobody perjured themselves. They said Roe was precedent, which it is. Precedent can be overruled—and there are clear guidelines for when to do so and Roe fit the bill on a lot of the factors. To say otherwise is to rely on the ignorance of the general public in an effort to delegitimize the institution in their eyes, and that’s irresponsible.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> How is it a violation of the social contract to advocate for reading the Constitution the same way we read any other written document? This is the wrong question. The constitution doesn't matter. It's deeply flawed (whatever your opinion on the second amendment, that what exactly it means is so deeply up for debate, and has been for 100+ years, goes to show that the document is flawed as a legal instrument!), but not going to change without bloodshed. People respect the rule of law, have faith in their institutions, because they feel represented and respected and empowered. But the reasons for that faith is eroding as we see that so many of our institutions are biased towards conservatives or conservative demographics. It is increasingly difficult to have faith in a democratic institution that doesn't provide equal representation. Respect for an institution is conditional! It must be! We should not respect a president who does illegal things just because they are the president, we should impeach them! The same is true of a court, it is not reasonable to to respect it if it fails to act consistently and, to many, the courts rulings are inconsistent. Perhaps they make sense to you, a constitutional lawyer who has two or three degrees and decade of ~indoctrination~ education on this particular subject, but to those normal people out here, a group of 9 (or well 6) of the most elite of the elites (lifetime appointments!) sit in their ivory tower and say "you need private guns to deal with unelected tyrants" (to quote a tweet I saw earlier), while rolling back life-saving policies and threatening others. On the left, you have to do a huge amount of work to get people to vote, not because they don't care, but because they're so disillusioned by their vote mattering, and that sentiment grows truer and truer! So why is it a violation of the social contract? Because the social contract is a fair and representative government. It is democracy with checks and balances. The less the government does that, the less people are going to want it. And the problem is that the SC is, or was, in a pretty crappy position: the constitution is flawed and encourages this inequality, but no one's going to change it because people (and here I'll absolutely call you out as an example!) venerate it far too much. And the next amendment will be written in blood. So the court can either let constitutional interpretation live and follow the will of the people, and make them feel represented, or it can not make any attempt to represent the people and only represent the law, and there's some merit in that too, but it's going to foment unrest. So the issue you're facing is that the way you want the court to work fails to respect the people, and so they fail to respect it.