Syrian Hmong

[Dill]

(10-11-2019, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/appeals-court-rules-house-trump-142133028.html

As I said maybe not cut and dry. In this instance the courts rule Trump must abide by a subpoena, but there was decent:

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling; as Federal Law is not my forte, but I will say how these opinions (and others) fell alone party lines such lead everyone to chuckle when they look at the blindfold on Lady Justice..

On this view of legal opinions, it is hard to understand how Republican John Roberts could have saved Obamacare, or Kennedy become the swing vote on Obergefell vs Hodges.

You see no other possibilities here to account for different legal judgments than "party line"?

It is not possible that ONE SIDE could just be following a non-partisan understanding of the law while the OTHER was actively partisan? And appointed to be so?

And it could not be coincidence that the vote fell this way? And that a degree of partisanship is necessary to legal process?

I have noticed how, in the post truth era, ferreting out some political affiliation regularly settles motivation and automatically discredits: e.g., the Ukraine whistleblower is Dem who "worked under Biden."  And this affiliation, rather law applied to factual record, is what we should be looking at.

"Party line" is a short cut confirming pre-judgments, avoiding the effort of understanding the law, evidence, and circumstances of judgment.


Nothing to chuckle about, really, when some 38-40% of the electorate are doing this.