The fact that there is disagreement does not imply there is no truth of the matter. You could claim that I merely disagree with the notion that 1+1=17, but nevertheless I would be justified in insisting that a teacher teaching this "fact" should be fired.
The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
Why is it that the derisive "oh you just disagree" statement usually speaks to a missing "...and therefore aren't serious"?
What are you actually saying constructively here, if anything at all? I, for one, happen to agree that fundamental reform is clearly necessary. What that looks like exactly is where I'm sure the problems lie.
Assuming my residence due to my nationality? Bad idea. Incredibly, in this day and age, people may be born in one country and live in another! Who would have thought, eh?
That the vast majority of people that "want reform" actually just want a Supreme Court whose majority always sides with them.
That you immediately go here in response to what are universally understood these days as incorrectly decided cases (Plessy in particular) shows incredibly bad faith on your part. Good day to you sir.
Comments
"Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid decisions that I disagree with in the future."
The fact that there is disagreement does not imply there is no truth of the matter. You could claim that I merely disagree with the notion that 1+1=17, but nevertheless I would be justified in insisting that a teacher teaching this "fact" should be fired.
The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
Bingo
So I am to understand that you agree with the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions? Bold strategy you're taking there.
Why is it that the derisive "oh you just disagree" statement usually speaks to a missing "...and therefore aren't serious"?
What are you actually saying constructively here, if anything at all? I, for one, happen to agree that fundamental reform is clearly necessary. What that looks like exactly is where I'm sure the problems lie.
Nothing, they're just trolling. Not even an American either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49633555
Assuming my residence due to my nationality? Bad idea. Incredibly, in this day and age, people may be born in one country and live in another! Who would have thought, eh?
If you're not a US citizen then your opinion on my country's court system is completely irrelevant to me. Residence has nothing to do with it.
That the vast majority of people that "want reform" actually just want a Supreme Court whose majority always sides with them.
That you immediately go here in response to what are universally understood these days as incorrectly decided cases (Plessy in particular) shows incredibly bad faith on your part. Good day to you sir.