Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another SCOTUS smackdown against Obama appointed judge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another SCOTUS smackdown against Obama appointed judge

    In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS overturned a US district court judge appointed by Obama ruling that the Trump administration, and Trump could require refugees to first apply for asylum in a third intermediate or their home country before coming to the US to apply. This is a continuing situation where Obama appointees rule against Trump and are then overturned by higher courts so consistently it is almost routine now.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...cid=spartandhp

    Worse, Ginsburg and Sotomayor's dissent opinion is based primarily on feelings and not law. Sotomayor even gets US history of refugees wrong.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said Judge Tigar’s ruling “warrants respect.”
    No citation of legal standing there, just we should respect his ruling no matter that it was pulled out of thin air...

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...cid=spartandhp


  • #2
    That's what happens when we get a wise Latino's point of view as opposed to a wise Latino's understanding of the law and the legal process.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS overturned a US district court judge appointed by Obama ruling that the Trump administration, and Trump could require refugees to first apply for asylum in a third intermediate or their home country before coming to the US to apply. This is a continuing situation where Obama appointees rule against Trump and are then overturned by higher courts so consistently it is almost routine now.

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...cid=spartandhp

      Worse, Ginsburg and Sotomayor's dissent opinion is based primarily on feelings and not law. Sotomayor even gets US history of refugees wrong.



      No citation of legal standing there, just we should respect his ruling no matter that it was pulled out of thin air...

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...cid=spartandhp
      I read her dissent and it is largely empty of any original thought.

      She doesn't offer any personal or new analysis, she just tells us what the lower court said and implies she agrees with that.
      Basically, it is a legal version of "what he said".

      No law, no analysis, just feelings and repeating what the lower court said.
      The highlight was when she said that "lower courts deserve respect" as if that is enough for the SCOTUS not to overturn a lower court decision.

      Once again, she has proven herself to be an empty suit.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #4
        Equity, diversity and inclusion has always been about feelings not reason. The socialist/communist perspective has proven disastrous historically but always attracts a new generation of radicals precisely because young people have little experience on which to analyze the world and are forced to instead rely on emotions.

        The instinct for fairness has a long evolutionary history and is found even in primitive primates. Although there is mounting evidence that radicals have high mutational loads that are associated with a lack of in group preferences social epistatis acts on "normal" individuals through the fairness instinct. This effect is particularly pronounced in people high in openness and low in conscientiousness. While it is tempting to associate morality with empathy the rules that apply to individuals cannot be translated to the societal level. The principles of reciprocal altruism that work at the instinctual individual level break down in large groups.

        The coevolotion of physical and cultural adaptations makes for a very complex environment for group selection called multilevel selection. The industrial revolution for example has proven to be a force for maladaptive genetic distribution. This situation presents moral challenges that the culture lacks the sophistication to deal with. Unsurprisingly most people when faced with such complexity revert to instinctual responses.

        What we can say in the face of complexity, we are not equipped to deal with, is that the smothering mother state has proven to induce as much immortality as progress. The introduction of eugenics by socialists at the beginning of the 20th century reflects the almost instinctual understanding that good genes and morals are somehow interlinked. Morality however is largely a social construct because it has a temporal element that instincts are poorly designed to accommodate. Both the morality of the left and the right are inadequate to deal with the unpleasant nature of reality. This is perhaps best represented by the proposed solutions to economic failure in individual with limited employment opportunities. The left hypothesis is that there is a job for anyone given enough training and support the rights hypothesis is that there is a job for everyone who works hard. Both are gross over simplification and reflect a lack of cultural sophistication. Neither empathy or conscientiousness will solve our problems.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X