3 ms·

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution

by Arodex 5mo ago

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after. >N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases were unanimously decided Now do the statistics for 2025-2026, cherrypicker.

halJordan 5mo ago
Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society
- croon 5mo ago
  I struggle with this daily. If two comments state the opposite, and one is "constructive" in framing, and one is antagonistic, I agree it's easier to carry the conversation with the former. But if the latter is the factually correct one, I'm not sure it's the one "hurting America", at least comparatively. This is an assumption made by me in service of the hypothetical. In general, I think debates (the school competition kind/internet spectacle kind) focuses entirely to much on perception, and very little on content, in that whoever wins is completely disjoint from who if any is actually right. Though I suppose it's easier to police/moderate the presentation than the veracity. TL;DR: I agree with you in general, all else being equal, but that's not always the case.
- Arodex 5mo ago
  What is hurting America is bad faith and bullshit. Not "belligerence" nor sarcasm. This constant appeal to civility only serves to stamp down any discussion. One side is doing ugly things, but the other is put down the second they dare use a bad word or are even slightly snarky. The parent comment is lying and manipulating his ass off - of course he is, why would he willingly mention statistics from 2024 when we are in 2026? He did it on purpose; but you find offense in my comment because I dare point it out in a not-kind-enough way. Not even unkind nor insulting: not kind enough. I am even called "contrarian". Words stopped meaning anything, apparently.
  - akramachamarei 5mo ago
    Please see my response above. Your presumption of malice is... quite odd, and frankly somewhat lazy.
akramachamarei 5mo ago
Not cherrypicking, honest, officer! Anyway, I didn't include those stats since scotusblog hasn't presented them yet... probably because they aren't even done deciding/releasing all the 2025 cases! (And the SCOTUS term is like a college year, it goes from October 2025 to April 2026.) Anyway, out of the decided cases from October 2025 to April 2026, I count 15.5 unanimous out of 28 (more than 50%). (½ unanimous because it was an 8-0 vote.) I'll have to get back to you about the ideological split. Presumably the MQs haven't changed, so this would be a simple counting exercise. Would need to check the 2024 statpack methodology. Edit: I counted 2/28 split ideologically. Could go up to 4/28 depending on how you define it. And of course, these stats could change a lot as more decisions come in. But presumably the public perception of ideological divisions is driven by _decided_ cases, and these statistics would suggest that's unfounded.

by Arodex 5mo ago

halJordan 5mo ago

Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society

croon 5mo ago
I struggle with this daily. If two comments state the opposite, and one is "constructive" in framing, and one is antagonistic, I agree it's easier to carry the conversation with the former. But if the latter is the factually correct one, I'm not sure it's the one "hurting America", at least comparatively. This is an assumption made by me in service of the hypothetical. In general, I think debates (the school competition kind/internet spectacle kind) focuses entirely to much on perception, and very little on content, in that whoever wins is completely disjoint from who if any is actually right. Though I suppose it's easier to police/moderate the presentation than the veracity. TL;DR: I agree with you in general, all else being equal, but that's not always the case.
Arodex 5mo ago
What is hurting America is bad faith and bullshit. Not "belligerence" nor sarcasm. This constant appeal to civility only serves to stamp down any discussion. One side is doing ugly things, but the other is put down the second they dare use a bad word or are even slightly snarky. The parent comment is lying and manipulating his ass off - of course he is, why would he willingly mention statistics from 2024 when we are in 2026? He did it on purpose; but you find offense in my comment because I dare point it out in a not-kind-enough way. Not even unkind nor insulting: not kind enough. I am even called "contrarian". Words stopped meaning anything, apparently.
- akramachamarei 5mo ago
  Please see my response above. Your presumption of malice is... quite odd, and frankly somewhat lazy.

akramachamarei 5mo ago

Not cherrypicking, honest, officer! Anyway, I didn't include those stats since scotusblog hasn't presented them yet... probably because they aren't even done deciding/releasing all the 2025 cases! (And the SCOTUS term is like a college year, it goes from October 2025 to April 2026.) Anyway, out of the decided cases from October 2025 to April 2026, I count 15.5 unanimous out of 28 (more than 50%). (½ unanimous because it was an 8-0 vote.) I'll have to get back to you about the ideological split. Presumably the MQs haven't changed, so this would be a simple counting exercise. Would need to check the 2024 statpack methodology. Edit: I counted 2/28 split ideologically. Could go up to 4/28 depending on how you define it. And of course, these stats could change a lot as more decisions come in. But presumably the public perception of ideological divisions is driven by _decided_ cases, and these statistics would suggest that's unfounded.