"If I ever explained myself, people might try to hold me to account for my explanations in the future, so I'm just not gonna do that, and you all can just suck it." Thanks, man. That's exactly how...
"If I ever explained myself, people might try to hold me to account for my explanations in the future, so I'm just not gonna do that, and you all can just suck it."
Thanks, man. That's exactly how I want the Supreme Court to manage its business.
Sure, if by “hold me into account” you mean “threaten friends and family.” Are you sure you want to support that? It goes against the principle of having an independent judiciary. Judges aren’t...
Sure, if by “hold me into account” you mean “threaten friends and family.”
Are you sure you want to support that? It goes against the principle of having an independent judiciary. Judges aren’t supposed to be punished or “held to account” for making a decision some people don’t like. That’s why they’re appointed, so that Barrett can rule against Trump if it seems like the right thing to do.
Also, who do you suppose is doing the threatening? What are their political beliefs? Are you sure they’re on your side? How accountable or representative of the public are they?
If you want judges to be held accountable, surely having elected judges would make a lot more sense than appointed judges. The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to be subject to that kind of accountability.
This actually strongly implies not wanting to be accountable to do it across the board. Implying that somebody supports "attacks on friends and family" because they want judges to be held...
“That’s a tricky standard,” Barrett explained during an on-stage conversation with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patrick Bumatay. “If you identify reasons, you have to do it across the board, right?”
This actually strongly implies not wanting to be accountable to do it across the board. Implying that somebody supports "attacks on friends and family" because they want judges to be held accountable is bad faith. Outright stating it is building a strawman to punch in the face.
For the record, I don't give a fuck whose side the people threatening violence are on. They shouldn't be doing it and should be held accountable for it as well. In my opinion, the problem there is far more that we've just decided that threats are the expected minimum these days. So everybody just gets death threats as a standard and nobody does anything to stop it not really.
But I think your reply was deliberately antagonistic and not at all reading the person in good faith.
Emphasis mine. I disagree with your interpretation of the tone of your post.
Sure, if by “hold me into account” you mean “threaten friends and family.”
Are you sure you want to support that?
Emphasis mine.
Also, who do you suppose is doing the threatening? What are their political beliefs? Are you sure they’re on your side? How accountable or representative of the public are they?
I disagree with your interpretation of the tone of your post.
That’s a question and I hope the answer is “no,” but who knows? People post galaxy-brained takes sometimes. It’s up to MimicSquad to explain. Whatever they meant, you are clearly trying to start...
That’s a question and I hope the answer is “no,” but who knows? People post galaxy-brained takes sometimes. It’s up to MimicSquad to explain.
Whatever they meant, you are clearly trying to start an argument. If you don’t want to do that, stop digging.
I'm neither digging nor attempting to start an argument. Asking questions can be done in bad faith. That's the whole basis of Just Asking Questions /JAQing off. Saying "are you sure you want to...
That’s a question and I hope the answer is “no,” but who knows? People post galaxy-brained takes sometimes. It’s up to MimicSquad to explain.
Whatever they meant, you are clearly trying to start an argument. If you don’t want to do that, stop digging.
I'm neither digging nor attempting to start an argument.
Asking questions can be done in bad faith. That's the whole basis of Just Asking Questions /JAQing off.
Saying "are you sure you want to support that" presupposes that the person's statement does support that by default. And it's not just explaining how judges work.
If the previous poster had made a statement in support of threats against someone's life, I'd fully understand reacting in such a manner.
I don't think "If you don't agree with me, don't engage with me" is a productive counterpoint here. And for what one more anecdotal opinion is worth, I have to agree with @DefinitelyNotAFae, your...
Whatever they meant, you are clearly trying to start an argument. If you don’t want to do that, stop digging.
I don't think "If you don't agree with me, don't engage with me" is a productive counterpoint here. And for what one more anecdotal opinion is worth, I have to agree with @DefinitelyNotAFae, your tone comes across (reads) as antagonistic. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant that way, perhaps an edit may help.
That’s an argument for having elected judges then. However, the results might not always be what you hoped? Particularly in red states. The federal court system, where judges are appointed, is...
That’s an argument for having elected judges then. However, the results might not always be what you hoped? Particularly in red states.
The federal court system, where judges are appointed, is designed on different principles.
I don’t think it necessarily is. If they weren’t supposed to be held accountable then impeachment wouldn’t exist for them. It’s designed under different principles certainly, and there is some...
I don’t think it necessarily is. If they weren’t supposed to be held accountable then impeachment wouldn’t exist for them.
It’s designed under different principles certainly, and there is some truth to federal judges meant to be independent and out of the political fray, but they weren’t meant to be unassailable philosopher kings .
No, but I do think that judges should be accountable for consistency and transparency. And I don't think those controls should be political. The reason you're getting the reaction that you are is...
Sure, if by “hold me into account” you mean “threaten friends and family.”
Are you sure you want to support that?
No, but I do think that judges should be accountable for consistency and transparency. And I don't think those controls should be political.
The reason you're getting the reaction that you are is because you're written the dictionary definition of a strawman argument. No one is defending threats against a justice or their family here. But that is a societal factor, I do not accept the claim that "I don't need to be transparent because it is dangerous." If being transparent is dangerous then perhaps she is not fit for the job.
Barrett, a Trump appointee, said most recusals are triggered by financial conflicts that are already disclosed in public filings made by all federal judges. And some are for pedestrian reasons; for example, when a judge or justice has already handled a case in the lower court and shouldn’t be reviewing her own rulings.
However, more nuanced scenarios that could lead to recusals, she noted, often involve the appearance of impropriety and can also relate to a justice’s friends or family members or what she called “deeply held convictions.”
“That’s a tricky standard,” Barrett explained during an on-stage conversation with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patrick Bumatay. “If you identify reasons, you have to do it across the board, right?”
…
Barrett did not mention Trump’s rhetoric Thursday, but said she feared that if she explained her recusals, her friends and family could be unfairly and unwillingly drawn into the spotlight or harassed.
“People can be mad at me for decisions, or lash out at me for the way I decide a case,” Barrett said. “But I have to think too about, well, is it really something I want to do … to identify that person and then put that person in that position? So, I just sort of feel like, when you think about the full range of reasons across the board, I don’t know what might arise in the future, so it’s just better not to say.”
…
Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, began providing brief explanations for recusals two years ago. The court’s two other Democratic appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, now typically do so, while the court’s Republican-appointed justices generally do not.
"If I ever explained myself, people might try to hold me to account for my explanations in the future, so I'm just not gonna do that, and you all can just suck it."
Thanks, man. That's exactly how I want the Supreme Court to manage its business.
Sure, if by “hold me into account” you mean “threaten friends and family.”
Are you sure you want to support that? It goes against the principle of having an independent judiciary. Judges aren’t supposed to be punished or “held to account” for making a decision some people don’t like. That’s why they’re appointed, so that Barrett can rule against Trump if it seems like the right thing to do.
Also, who do you suppose is doing the threatening? What are their political beliefs? Are you sure they’re on your side? How accountable or representative of the public are they?
If you want judges to be held accountable, surely having elected judges would make a lot more sense than appointed judges. The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to be subject to that kind of accountability.
This actually strongly implies not wanting to be accountable to do it across the board. Implying that somebody supports "attacks on friends and family" because they want judges to be held accountable is bad faith. Outright stating it is building a strawman to punch in the face.
For the record, I don't give a fuck whose side the people threatening violence are on. They shouldn't be doing it and should be held accountable for it as well. In my opinion, the problem there is far more that we've just decided that threats are the expected minimum these days. So everybody just gets death threats as a standard and nobody does anything to stop it not really.
But I think your reply was deliberately antagonistic and not at all reading the person in good faith.
I sincerely explained something about how the judiciary is supposed to work. Your post is deliberately antagonistic - accusing me of bad faith.
Emphasis mine.
I disagree with your interpretation of the tone of your post.
That’s a question and I hope the answer is “no,” but who knows? People post galaxy-brained takes sometimes. It’s up to MimicSquad to explain.
Whatever they meant, you are clearly trying to start an argument. If you don’t want to do that, stop digging.
I'm neither digging nor attempting to start an argument.
Asking questions can be done in bad faith. That's the whole basis of Just Asking Questions /JAQing off.
Saying "are you sure you want to support that" presupposes that the person's statement does support that by default. And it's not just explaining how judges work.
If the previous poster had made a statement in support of threats against someone's life, I'd fully understand reacting in such a manner.
I don't think "If you don't agree with me, don't engage with me" is a productive counterpoint here. And for what one more anecdotal opinion is worth, I have to agree with @DefinitelyNotAFae, your tone comes across (reads) as antagonistic. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant that way, perhaps an edit may help.
I fundamentally disagree
That’s an argument for having elected judges then. However, the results might not always be what you hoped? Particularly in red states.
The federal court system, where judges are appointed, is designed on different principles.
I don’t think it necessarily is. If they weren’t supposed to be held accountable then impeachment wouldn’t exist for them.
It’s designed under different principles certainly, and there is some truth to federal judges meant to be independent and out of the political fray, but they weren’t meant to be unassailable philosopher kings .
No, but I do think that judges should be accountable for consistency and transparency. And I don't think those controls should be political.
The reason you're getting the reaction that you are is because you're written the dictionary definition of a strawman argument. No one is defending threats against a justice or their family here. But that is a societal factor, I do not accept the claim that "I don't need to be transparent because it is dangerous." If being transparent is dangerous then perhaps she is not fit for the job.
So the only means of accountability is violence in your eyes?
From the article:
…
…
Sorry, can we add "politics.usa" to topic tags?