4 ms·

Without taking a position on the legal arguments: "How to participate in Monday’s oral arguments" is a deeply offensive thing to say. Once something reaches SC

Without taking a position on the legal arguments: "How to participate in Monday’s oral arguments" is a deeply offensive thing to say. Once something reaches SCOTUS, it's strictly about matters of law. It's not a question of the merits or whether you like IA or not, and rooting is definitely inappropriate.

eynsham 4y ago
> SCOTUS ‘…the Southern District of New York will hear…’ > question of merits whether you like IA or not Whether the court ‘likes IA or not’ may be a relevant question in respect of public policy considerations. > rooting is definitely inappropriate First, participating (well IA really mean listening which is even weaker) does not amount to rooting. Second, there’s nothing wrong with having a view on what the judgment should be, unless writing an article in a law journal disputing a judgment would be ‘inappropriate’.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Days until someone does an audience meter like this during a live SCOTUS debate: I give it 14. https://www.imediaethics.org/its-entertainment-not-polling/ https://www.imediaethics.org/its-entertainment-not-polling/ We have a rule of law, not a mobocracy.
  - eynsham 4y ago
    I’ll make sure to remind my friends doing legal research that their informed opinion in fact amounts to ‘mobocracy’.
sqs 4y ago
Why is it deeply offensive? "Participate" here just means to follow, kind of like a Steve Jobs keynote liveblog. "Rooting" for one side of a legal case is absolutely appropriate for a defendant (or plaintiff) in our adversarial legal system. A defendant with a weak legal case but a strong public policy argument /needs/ to rally public support for their cause, so that if/when the court rules against them, they can push for the law to change.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  "participate" will very shortly mean "pushing an up- or down-arrow for every judge's question, and every counsel's answer." Oral arguments are not a HN posting.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    It may be wrong, but it shouldn't "deeply offend" you. You're taking this way too personally.
  - sqs 4y ago
    Court cases have been widely covered in all kinds of media for centuries. They are matters of public concern.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      there's a distinction between "watching" and "participating." You watch a football game. You don't go out and participate in it.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
This is judicially illiterate: "Common law refers to laws that are based on the customs and principles of society, which are used in court case decisions in situations not covered by civil law statutes." Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between common law and civil law systems, to the role societal customs play when interpreting the law, and to the role SCOTUS plays in the judicial machine
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between a question of fact and a question of law. You, in fact, are judicially illiterate. I don't care how it's done in France. This is all about the US. An appellate court here deals only with questions of law. "Societal customs" may have created our system, but that's the system we have.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I make no secret of the fact that I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you. You can read any of the famous dissenting opiniona of a suppreme court justice, and see that they highly consider 'how will society be affected if we choose A vs B'. Thats is not a matter of law. Furthermore, there are constant argument about how much legislaring from the bench supreme court should be doing. And about the fact that lawmakers are sleeping on the job forces SC to do so. Lartly, supreme court unding their own decision on abortion, the law hasn't changed.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      > I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you you're half right. Assuming you're not a lawyer: what credentials do you bring to the table? As far as I can tell, you're as ignorant as the average person.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      .. and now I understand that you think "doesn't agree with me" is the same as "illiterate." You've read a few articles and have opinions. That's fine. Many people do think it's all subjective and political, as you apparently do. Someone else here could argue with you and it would just degenerate into The Culture Wars, iteration 8799.0. I don't feel like doing that today, though. My background in legal training, publications, and experience would shut down your "illiterate" part. You'd probably just ignore it and repeat what you already said about judicial decisions, though. So I think we're done here.

eynsham 4y ago

> SCOTUS ‘…the Southern District of New York will hear…’ > question of merits whether you like IA or not Whether the court ‘likes IA or not’ may be a relevant question in respect of public policy considerations. > rooting is definitely inappropriate First, participating (well IA really mean listening which is even weaker) does not amount to rooting. Second, there’s nothing wrong with having a view on what the judgment should be, unless writing an article in a law journal disputing a judgment would be ‘inappropriate’.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Days until someone does an audience meter like this during a live SCOTUS debate: I give it 14. https://www.imediaethics.org/its-entertainment-not-polling/ https://www.imediaethics.org/its-entertainment-not-polling/ We have a rule of law, not a mobocracy.
- eynsham 4y ago
  I’ll make sure to remind my friends doing legal research that their informed opinion in fact amounts to ‘mobocracy’.

sqs 4y ago

Why is it deeply offensive? "Participate" here just means to follow, kind of like a Steve Jobs keynote liveblog. "Rooting" for one side of a legal case is absolutely appropriate for a defendant (or plaintiff) in our adversarial legal system. A defendant with a weak legal case but a strong public policy argument /needs/ to rally public support for their cause, so that if/when the court rules against them, they can push for the law to change.

AlbertCory 4y ago
"participate" will very shortly mean "pushing an up- or down-arrow for every judge's question, and every counsel's answer." Oral arguments are not a HN posting.
- stametseater 4y ago
  It may be wrong, but it shouldn't "deeply offend" you. You're taking this way too personally.
- sqs 4y ago
  Court cases have been widely covered in all kinds of media for centuries. They are matters of public concern.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    there's a distinction between "watching" and "participating." You watch a football game. You don't go out and participate in it.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

This is judicially illiterate: "Common law refers to laws that are based on the customs and principles of society, which are used in court case decisions in situations not covered by civil law statutes." Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between common law and civil law systems, to the role societal customs play when interpreting the law, and to the role SCOTUS plays in the judicial machine

AlbertCory 4y ago
Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between a question of fact and a question of law. You, in fact, are judicially illiterate. I don't care how it's done in France. This is all about the US. An appellate court here deals only with questions of law. "Societal customs" may have created our system, but that's the system we have.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  I make no secret of the fact that I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you. You can read any of the famous dissenting opiniona of a suppreme court justice, and see that they highly consider 'how will society be affected if we choose A vs B'. Thats is not a matter of law. Furthermore, there are constant argument about how much legislaring from the bench supreme court should be doing. And about the fact that lawmakers are sleeping on the job forces SC to do so. Lartly, supreme court unding their own decision on abortion, the law hasn't changed.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you you're half right. Assuming you're not a lawyer: what credentials do you bring to the table? As far as I can tell, you're as ignorant as the average person.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    .. and now I understand that you think "doesn't agree with me" is the same as "illiterate." You've read a few articles and have opinions. That's fine. Many people do think it's all subjective and political, as you apparently do. Someone else here could argue with you and it would just degenerate into The Culture Wars, iteration 8799.0. I don't feel like doing that today, though. My background in legal training, publications, and experience would shut down your "illiterate" part. You'd probably just ignore it and repeat what you already said about judicial decisions, though. So I think we're done here.