The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 29, 2017, 01:40 PM   #51
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Research demonstrates, as I have said before, that justices of all ilk vote their personal beliefs but then search past precedents or interpretations to justify their politics. It is not just a characteristic of the left.
The research can't demonstrate that since the researchers just choose the conclusions they prefer then build the model that will justify their personal conclusions, right?
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 29, 2017, 10:21 PM   #52
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,525
Well Glenn, I know we've had this conversation before. Everytime you mention Scalia's verbage, I feel like I haven't explained my view adequately; but we may just disagree.

I'd suggest that if you need to preserve some aspects of 1939-2007 gun regulation to get that crucial fifth vote, then the golden fleece is ambiguous dicta that gets you that fifth vote and allows lower courts to quote dicta without doing any real judicial analysis. That's doubly true if you have a Second Amendment case brought up before the Court is ready to take it.

In the short term, that will be a loss; but if you can get pro-2A people appointed, that is a strategy that pays off long-term because it stunts the growth of anti-2A judicial review and advances the Second, albeit very slowly.

As you've pointed out, it is also a good political sell since the only way that strategy pans out successfully is by an ability to appoint more pro-2A justices over decades, which means control of at least the White House and Senate by pro-2A folks.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 09:39 AM   #53
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
Research demonstrates, as I have said before, that justices of all ilk vote their personal beliefs but then search past precedents or interpretations to justify their politics. It is not just a characteristic of the left.

To the basic debate, the rhetoric and what might have been on Heller on votes, etc. does not negate the fact that Scalia (interpreted correctly or not) is used to justify state bans that clearly should be unconstitutional and these precedents are becoming stronger.

Positive behavioral outcomes of Heller besides rhetoric vs. negative usage of the decision will decide it the case was ill-advised and whether the follow ups are ill-advised.
I've always maintained that unelected bureaucrats and judges have done far more damage to this country than politicians. While, technically, politicians could deal with rogue bureaucrats and judges, they rarely do as their actions/decisions are usually supported by one of the two main political parties.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 01:04 AM   #54
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
Petition for Cert DENIED.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 05:56 AM   #55
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,668
Let stand a Circuit Court ruling that rifles in common use for 50+ years are not protected under the 2A. I wonder what they are waiting for and why there was zero public commentary from the justices?
armoredman is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 10:18 AM   #56
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,401
Well, folks I have my world view on this but appreciate the interchange. I am just frustrated on the behavioral outcomes which have been less than up to my expectations. Are they unrealistic, perhaps?

Quote:
The research can't demonstrate that since the researchers just choose the conclusions they prefer then build the model that will justify their personal conclusions, right?
That depends on the research. That idea is well known in the philosophy and history of science.

It seems to be a facet though, of choosing justices whose writings and utterances are scoured to see if they pass litmus tests on politically loaded items. A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.

Do judges come from a class of intellects whose decisions are based on a neutral and almost mathematical analysis of the law or are they individuals who decisions are based on their emotional and cognitive abilities. The latter decisions processes are filtered through the former - as happens in almost all decision making. Are they the exception, I doubt it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 11:43 AM   #57
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Well, folks I have my world view on this but appreciate the interchange.
As do I. I find your application of the idea literally anti-intellectual, but the disagreement isn't personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Quote:
The research can't demonstrate that since the researchers just choose the conclusions they prefer then build the model that will justify their personal conclusions, right?
That depends on the research.
That's special pleading. It can't depend on the research if the reasoning process is an after-wrtiiten fig leaf for fundamentally irrational urges.

If you believe that people arrive at their positions emotionally then cobble together a reasoning to support that conclusion so that you can dismiss categorically the reasoning set forth in Sup Ct decisions, that same process can't only apply to some research.

Every attorney has read result oriented jurisprudence; a court decides which party should win, then mangles the caselaw and code to get where it wants to go. For a high profile decision in which that happened, I would recommend the Bush/Gore decision of the FL Sup Ct. It's a wreck.

Yet, that isn't what all judges do in all cases. There is a distance in professional analysis that allows one to tell his own client which parts of his case are terrible and why he should settle rather than lose.

Is all psychological research just the emotional ramblings of the researchers, or do you have some kind of responsibility to deal with the text of writing before you dismiss it, even if a judge wrote it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
That isn't actually so. Lots of people have ideas on that topic that won't fit on a bumpersticker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
That idea is well known in the philosophy and history of science.
That idea is significantly more complex than the one you've presented. Kuhn's ideas about scientific revolutions describe a cognitive process by which shifting assumptions change what one can perceive. His framework builds on Gadamer and Berkeley and philosophical idealism generally. None if it is the facile dismissal of conclusions you dislike as mere "gut opposition".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Do judges come from a class of intellects whose decisions are based on a neutral and almost mathematical analysis of the law or are they individuals who decisions are based on their emotional and cognitive abilities. The latter decisions processes are filtered through the former - as happens in almost all decision making. Are they the exception, I doubt it.
I understand that you doubt it, especially when you disagree with a decision. To doubt that a writer lacks emotions on an issue is reasonable. To attribute an antipathy to a writer in order to dismiss his reasoning isn't.

Last edited by zukiphile; December 2, 2017 at 10:53 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 12:58 PM   #58
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
Only until they are appointed. Then they can be whatever they like...
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 04:00 PM   #59
Psychedelic Bang
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2009
Location: FL USA
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
As do I. I find your application of the idea literally anti-intellectual, but the disagreement isn't personal.



That's special pleading. It can't depend on the research if the reasoning process is an after-wrtiiten fig leaf for fundamentally irrational urges.

If you believe that people arrive at their positions emotionally then cobble together a reasoning to support that conclusion so that you can dismiss categorically the reasoning set forth in Sup Ct decisions, that same process can only apply to some research.

Every attorney has read result oriented jurisprudence; a court decides which party should win, then mangles the caselaw and code to get where it wants to go. For a high profile decision in which that happened, I would recommend the Bush/Gore decision of the FL Sup Ct. It's a wreck.

Yet, that isn't what all judges do in all cases. There is a distance in professional analysis that allows one to tell his own client which parts of his case are terrible and why he should settle rather than lose.

Is all psychological research just the emotional ramblings of the researchers, or do you have some kind of responsibility to deal with the text of writing before you dismiss it, even if a judge wrote it?



That isn't actually so. Lots of people have ideas on that topic that won't fit on a bumpersticker.



That idea is significantly more complex than the one you've presented. Kuhn's ideas about scientific revolutions describe a cognitive process by which shifting assumptions change what one can perceive. His framework builds on Gadamer and Berkeley and philosophical idealism generally. None if it is the facile dismissal of conclusions you dislike as mere "gut opposition".



I understand that you doubt it, especially when you disagree with a decision. To doubt that a writer lacks emotions on an issue is reasonable. To attribute an antipathy to a writer in order to dismiss his reasoning isn't.

If you read the decision closely.. It is a double edged sword, whether you want to believe it or not.

"The 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right." "The right to bear arms is not a protection of dangerous and unusual weapons."
__________________
"Was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually. I really like those sequined shirts..."

Last edited by Psychedelic Bang; December 1, 2017 at 07:04 PM. Reason: grammar, spelling
Psychedelic Bang is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 09:22 PM   #60
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Quote:
A judge must be prolife and or prochoice, for example.
Only until they are appointed. Then they can be whatever they like...
In theory, once appointed they are supposed to be pro-law, irrespective of their personal feelings and/or opinions.

But that's only in theory.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old December 1, 2017, 10:47 PM   #61
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
...Every attorney has read result oriented jurisprudence; a court decides which party should win, then mangles the caselaw and code to get where it wants to go. For a high profile decision in which that happened, I would recommend the Bush/Gore decision of the FL Sup Ct. It's a wreck.

Yet, that isn't what all judges do in all cases. There is a distance in professional analysis that allows one to tell his own client which parts of his case are terrible and why he should settle rather than lose......
And judges are human too. Like everyone else they have beliefs, values, needs, hopes and fears. And yes, they're supposed to put all that aside when they decide a legal point. And almost all do most of the time. But sometimes some won't be able to -- even if they can still delude themselves into believing that they are being objective and dispassionate.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 02:22 PM   #62
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,610
Two threads discussing the same case - Merged.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 04:55 PM   #63
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,193
Quote:
Like everyone else they have beliefs, values, needs, hopes and fears.
I agree, but you left out something else they have, EGOs.

As far as I can see from the gutter where I live, the effect of Heller on lower courts pretty much could be a line written by the Who...

Meet the new boss! Same as the old Boss!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 05:41 PM   #64
jdc1244
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 509
Quote:
Let stand a Circuit Court ruling that rifles in common use for 50+ years are not protected under the 2A. I wonder what they are waiting for and why there was zero public commentary from the justices?
They’re likely waiting for a Federal appeals court to strike down a law similar to the SAFE Act or the FSA, as was the case when the Sixth Circuit upheld state measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, where other appellate courts had invalidated such prohibitions.
jdc1244 is offline  
Old December 8, 2017, 09:45 AM   #65
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
Only until they are appointed. Then they can be whatever they like...
True. I do think, however, a judge's past judicial record is generally a pretty good indicator of what he/she will do in the future.
ATN082268 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07993 seconds with 10 queries