3 ms·

>I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonabl

>I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"? As I have several times pointed out to you, the thread you responded to wasn't discussing the reasonability of this ruling, but the reasonability of the 5th Circuit in general, to which it has also been pointed out to you, has had a number of its more extreme decisions overruled by the current supreme court. >What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand? There's no part of that which I don't understand, and it's an odd response to insist I'm not understanding your posts, which I very clearly do and have repeatedly pointed out as pertaining to a different issue than what was being discussed, by asking if I understood that you think the court is reasonable. Yes, we get that you think the court is reasonable here. Try reading my posts again. Or, don't. Either way, no need to be angry.

Dalewyn 3y ago
You're still not understanding me, so let me rephrase: What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling? The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. It's an attack on the rule of law, and the only logical conclusion if this is kept up is anarchy. I find this ironic, actually; because these people presumably want to protect the rule of law, but they are achieving the exact opposite. Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling? Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp. >The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. We are just people sharing opinions on HN, I'm not sure where you got the impression that your posts were productive, or any of the posts here are productive, nor by what means you seem to have used to come to such a conclusion. >Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations. Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you! >The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine. The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp. Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless. >Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you! It's one thing to read the ruling and poignantly point out flaws so they can be criticized in ways that are useful. Constructive criticism, as it's often called. Criticizing the judiciary in itself is fine and certainly encouraged. In fact, this is fundamental to the concept of appealing to higher courts. What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society. >The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine. See prior point. >The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling. If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless. No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. >What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society. Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism. >If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out. We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.

Dalewyn 3y ago

You're still not understanding me, so let me rephrase: What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling? The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. It's an attack on the rule of law, and the only logical conclusion if this is kept up is anarchy. I find this ironic, actually; because these people presumably want to protect the rule of law, but they are achieving the exact opposite. Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.

freejazz 3y ago
>What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling? Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp. >The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. We are just people sharing opinions on HN, I'm not sure where you got the impression that your posts were productive, or any of the posts here are productive, nor by what means you seem to have used to come to such a conclusion. >Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations. Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you! >The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine. The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp. Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless. >Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you! It's one thing to read the ruling and poignantly point out flaws so they can be criticized in ways that are useful. Constructive criticism, as it's often called. Criticizing the judiciary in itself is fine and certainly encouraged. In fact, this is fundamental to the concept of appealing to higher courts. What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society. >The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine. See prior point. >The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling. If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless. No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. >What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society. Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism. >If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out. We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.