5 ms·

Some members of the supreme court need an explaination and explicit guidance in order to file forms for transactions, which in most countries on earth would con

by atoav 3y ago

Some members of the supreme court need an explaination and explicit guidance in order to file forms for transactions, which in most countries on earth would constitute undefendable levels of corruption. I think it is quite optimistic, if not even downright naive to assume the text matters at all for such protagonists. If they were concerned about such things they would hold themselves to higher ethical standards than other courts, not lower ones. If my countries supreme court behaved that way, I would expect weeks of protest till the court takes care of that. I am not an US citizen, but the looking at the way the SCOTUS has both been conducting itself I am very worried about the state of democracy in the US. To someone outside the US it is already stunning that you can elect governments or political leaders that have the minority of the vote, but them then filling three live time supreme court positions? Who thought that was a good system? They must have smoked the bad stuff.

politician 3y ago
In response to the prompt, "Given the comment, please characterize the author's implicit bias in a single sentence:" > The author appears to have an implicit bias against the US Supreme Court, its ethical standards, and the overall American democratic system, particularly in terms of the process for electing government officials and lifetime Supreme Court justices. That seems pretty good. I should turn this into a browser widget.
- GeneralMayhem 3y ago
  Opinion != bias. If parent had said "I think this action was wrong because SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong", then sure. But reading "I think SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong because they've taken these actions" and from that concluding that the author dislikes SCOTUS isn't insight or a gotcha, it's just basic literal reading comprehension.
- atoav 3y ago
  Congratulations, you figured out that as a friend of free societies I am "biased" against small groups of inacountable and people that excert power of powpulations that cannot vote them out of office without a bloody revolution. This has been a bias I have worked to keep alive despite having been born into a life where I would be fine without cultivating it. Calling this a "bias" isn't the flex you think it is and probably tells more about your own world view than about mine.
  - politician 3y ago
    They aren't unaccountable. There are mechanisms and precedents for ignoring the results of the court and for the other branches to manipulate the composition of the court through normal (e.g. nominating and confirming appointees) and extraordinary processes (e.g. increasing or decreasing the size of the court). As an admitted non-American, writing forcefully about a branch of our government that you don't understand, and essentially advocating for dramatic changes to our constitution to reign in this branch of government that you don't understand but do not like, it is transparently obvious you have some bias such that even ChatGPT can detect and characterize it. Why are you so hung up about the word 'bias'? Just own it. Americans almost certainly criticize your country and its government.
legitster 3y ago
Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where written federal laws do not already exist. For all it's faults, I would argue the Supreme Court has worked reasonably well - because the justices do not seek elections and do not owe loyalty to their appointees. And anything they do could be relatively easily undone if the US could ever be bother to pass laws again. In a way, you can almost think of their decisions as open-source. All of their arguments are written down and you can actually read their reasoning for yourself (as opposed to some of the dire interpretations offered by journalists). There are some notable exceptions (Alito and Thomas), but for the most part you can read their arguments for yourself and see that most of them are pretty professional and fair-minded. > I think it is quite optimistic, if not even downright naive to assume the text matters at all for such protagonists. If anything, the newest court is doing the opposite of what you are worried about. They are willing to throw out established precedence where there is not written law. In a way, the new court is leaning more democractic to a fault.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where the meaning of federal laws or regulations is unclear. The problem is that, ultimately, pretty much any law can be challenged and appealed all the way to SCOTUS - and if they choose to take the case and issue a ruling, there's no recourse within the system. That is an immense amount of power no matter how one looks into it - it's basically a non-overridable veto on anything the government does, not even necessarily just passed legislation, and not just on the federal level (as any action by the state government can also be challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional wrt the federal constitution).
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The SC can only rule on cases that appear before them. The SC cannot just decide to rule on whatever they want.
    - 3y ago
Natsu 3y ago
It's kinda weird that the people worried about supreme court ethics are worried about a guy with rich friends who has no business before the court, but not worried about someone with large book deals who does have business before the court.
WalterBright 3y ago
The US is a republic, not a democracy. The Executive, Legislature, and Judicial branches form a triumvirate, which is a stable form of government. Their powers are complementary, and consist of numerous checks and balances. One feature of the system, not a bug, is the protections against the majority riding roughshod over the minority. > They must have smoked the bad stuff. They did an incredibly good job. It's still the best Constitution. I say this while still disagreeing with a lot of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
- atoav 3y ago
  > It's still the best Constitution. [citation needed]
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    It’s like 8 times older than the average age of most constitutions. So it has longevity and staying power.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    It has lasted longer than every other constitution for every other country. Doesn't make it the "best" but on the other hand you can't achieve that kind of longevity by "smoking the bad stuff."
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > It has lasted longer than every other constitution for every other country. No it hasn't. The oldest written national constitution in continuous effect is that of San Marino, from 1600 (unless you count some charters that usually aren't treated that way, like Magna Carta). And plenty of nations survive just fine with traditional rather than integrated written constitutions, which are something of a modern fad, which is why none of the longest continuous constitutional systems have a written constitution in the first place.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
paulddraper 3y ago
> file forms for transactions Which forms? What transactions? I'm sure you're referencing something real, but my search isn't turning up anything https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+forms+transactions https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+forms+transact...

by atoav 3y ago

politician 3y ago

In response to the prompt, "Given the comment, please characterize the author's implicit bias in a single sentence:" > The author appears to have an implicit bias against the US Supreme Court, its ethical standards, and the overall American democratic system, particularly in terms of the process for electing government officials and lifetime Supreme Court justices. That seems pretty good. I should turn this into a browser widget.

GeneralMayhem 3y ago
Opinion != bias. If parent had said "I think this action was wrong because SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong", then sure. But reading "I think SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong because they've taken these actions" and from that concluding that the author dislikes SCOTUS isn't insight or a gotcha, it's just basic literal reading comprehension.
atoav 3y ago
Congratulations, you figured out that as a friend of free societies I am "biased" against small groups of inacountable and people that excert power of powpulations that cannot vote them out of office without a bloody revolution. This has been a bias I have worked to keep alive despite having been born into a life where I would be fine without cultivating it. Calling this a "bias" isn't the flex you think it is and probably tells more about your own world view than about mine.
- politician 3y ago
  They aren't unaccountable. There are mechanisms and precedents for ignoring the results of the court and for the other branches to manipulate the composition of the court through normal (e.g. nominating and confirming appointees) and extraordinary processes (e.g. increasing or decreasing the size of the court). As an admitted non-American, writing forcefully about a branch of our government that you don't understand, and essentially advocating for dramatic changes to our constitution to reign in this branch of government that you don't understand but do not like, it is transparently obvious you have some bias such that even ChatGPT can detect and characterize it. Why are you so hung up about the word 'bias'? Just own it. Americans almost certainly criticize your country and its government.

legitster 3y ago

Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where written federal laws do not already exist. For all it's faults, I would argue the Supreme Court has worked reasonably well - because the justices do not seek elections and do not owe loyalty to their appointees. And anything they do could be relatively easily undone if the US could ever be bother to pass laws again. In a way, you can almost think of their decisions as open-source. All of their arguments are written down and you can actually read their reasoning for yourself (as opposed to some of the dire interpretations offered by journalists). There are some notable exceptions (Alito and Thomas), but for the most part you can read their arguments for yourself and see that most of them are pretty professional and fair-minded. > I think it is quite optimistic, if not even downright naive to assume the text matters at all for such protagonists. If anything, the newest court is doing the opposite of what you are worried about. They are willing to throw out established precedence where there is not written law. In a way, the new court is leaning more democractic to a fault.

int_19h 3y ago
Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where the meaning of federal laws or regulations is unclear. The problem is that, ultimately, pretty much any law can be challenged and appealed all the way to SCOTUS - and if they choose to take the case and issue a ruling, there's no recourse within the system. That is an immense amount of power no matter how one looks into it - it's basically a non-overridable veto on anything the government does, not even necessarily just passed legislation, and not just on the federal level (as any action by the state government can also be challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional wrt the federal constitution).
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The SC can only rule on cases that appear before them. The SC cannot just decide to rule on whatever they want.
  - 3y ago

Natsu 3y ago

It's kinda weird that the people worried about supreme court ethics are worried about a guy with rich friends who has no business before the court, but not worried about someone with large book deals who does have business before the court.

WalterBright 3y ago

The US is a republic, not a democracy. The Executive, Legislature, and Judicial branches form a triumvirate, which is a stable form of government. Their powers are complementary, and consist of numerous checks and balances. One feature of the system, not a bug, is the protections against the majority riding roughshod over the minority. > They must have smoked the bad stuff. They did an incredibly good job. It's still the best Constitution. I say this while still disagreeing with a lot of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

atoav 3y ago
> It's still the best Constitution. [citation needed]
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  It’s like 8 times older than the average age of most constitutions. So it has longevity and staying power.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  It has lasted longer than every other constitution for every other country. Doesn't make it the "best" but on the other hand you can't achieve that kind of longevity by "smoking the bad stuff."
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > It has lasted longer than every other constitution for every other country. No it hasn't. The oldest written national constitution in continuous effect is that of San Marino, from 1600 (unless you count some charters that usually aren't treated that way, like Magna Carta). And plenty of nations survive just fine with traditional rather than integrated written constitutions, which are something of a modern fad, which is why none of the longest continuous constitutional systems have a written constitution in the first place.
    - paulddraper 3y ago

paulddraper 3y ago

> file forms for transactions Which forms? What transactions? I'm sure you're referencing something real, but my search isn't turning up anything https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+forms+transactions https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+forms+transact...