Syrian Hmong

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: 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? Or 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 to pre-judgment, 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.

I suppose it's possible, but to be fair conservative judges can be partisan too.