Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Alan Klein]

Lord help us if Alan Klein ever became a SC judge !!

Another personal attack.  Can't you make a cogent argument?

[jeremyrh]

Another personal attack.  Can't you make a cogent argument?

Yes, I can indeed, but what's the point?

[faberryman]

Ok... let's allow for your pedantry and stick to those 5:4 cases; or 6:3; or 7:2; or even 8:1... my question still holds: do we call the dissenting judges "ignorant" or not worthy of further discussion with?

Rarely ignorant, but certainly other epitaphs depending on the particular decision and one's political persuasion. It depends on which media you elect to read.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, I can indeed, but what's the point?

Sorry, people make personal attacks when they can't make a cogent argument. 

[Robert Roaldi]

For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.

No one prevented him from expressing an opinion. He can write whatever her wants, within reason, and that's all that's required. However, that doesn't preclude having those opinions judged. An opinion is not de facto valid because you happen to have it. Alan has expressed disagreements with the opinions of other many times. That's part and part of what discussion is.

No one ever insulted him, unless you think that disagreement is an insult, in which case you are multiply guilty of that yourself.

[jeremyrh]

Sorry, people make personal attacks when they can't make a cogent argument.

Yawn.

[Jeremy Roussak]

For what it is worth, I am deeply disappointed by the unfair treatment of Alan, by otherwise reasonable people, for exercising his right to a different opinion.

Slobodan, I can speak for nobody but myself, but as I hope is crystal clear from what I have written, while I disagree fundamentally with his opinion, that is not the cause of my anger; it is his wilful refusal to learn and accept the facts of the case on which he mistakenly relies which is infuriating.

Jeremy

[Alan Goldhammer]

Most cases are not decided by a 5 to 4 margin. Those are just the ones reported on in the press, usually involving social issues. Most of the cases decided by SCOTUS are so arcane they are not interesting to anyone other than the constitutional scholar, and so you never hear about them. SCOTUS cases are characterized by being well reasoned on both sides, which is often not the case with much of public discourse.

One can go to the SCOTUS database and find out exactly the ratios are.  Here is a Washington Post story that quickly comes up with Google that speaks to this issue.  There are a lot of mundane cases that the Court takes up that end up with clear cut decisions but one seldom reads about them.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, I can speak for nobody but myself, but as I hope is crystal clear from what I have written, while I disagree fundamentally with his opinion, that is not the cause of my anger; it is his wilful refusal to learn and accept the facts of the case on which he mistakenly relies which is infuriating.

Jeremy, and THAT (bold)  is precisely the source of my deep disappointment. Such a stance presupposes that, after facts are presented, everyone should come to the same conclusion and form the same opinion. As I demonstrated with my SCOTUS parallel, this is definitely not the case.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... No one ever insulted him...

You are kidding, right? Calling him "ignorant," etc. is not insulting? There are numerous posts with more or less direct condescending comments directed at him, and I even pointed that out on at least two occasions.

[Peter McLennan]

Terming somebody "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult.  It may be a statement of fact.
Ignorance is not an attitude nor an opinion.  It is a lack of knowledge.

[JoeKitchen]

I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...

the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing. 

Sorry Bart.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Terming somebody "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult.  It may be a statement of fact.
Ignorance is not an attitude nor an opinion.  It is a lack of knowledge.

So, which facts Alan, myself, or, as a parallel, SCOTUS justices didn't know when they disagreed? Once again, the same group of people, presented with the same set of facts, will come to a different conclusion. That's a fact.

There is this persistent and pervasive stance that if only one would learn all the facts, they would see the light like the rest of the illuminati. That simply is not true.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy, and THAT (bold)  is precisely the source of my deep disappointment. Such a stance presupposes that, after facts are presented, everyone should come to the same conclusion and form the same opinion. As I demonstrated with my SCOTUS parallel, this is definitely not the case.

No, Slobodan. Absolutely not. Please re-read what I have written.

If Alan were to acquaint himself with the facts of the case he persists in using to base his argument, and then were to run the same argument from those facts, I would disagree but I would respect the argument. It is precisely because he refuses to get to know the facts, relying instead on predigested opinions from journalists, that I refuse to engage further with him. We are not arguing about interpretation of facts; he refuses to accept their very existence.

Alan's position is similar to that of someone who claims the moon is edible because it is made of green cheese, and persists in his belief that it is edible despite overwhelming evidence that it is not in fact made of green cheese because he has read articles by journalists who maintain that it is.

If his position were that the moon is edible despite being made of moon rock, I would regard it as silly but at least in conformity with the facts.

You are kidding, right? Calling him "ignorant," etc. is not insulting?

No, it's not an insult; in this case, it's an observation. The word may be used as part of a nondescript term of abuse, but not by me. He is ignorant of the facts, and he clings to his ignorance and refuses to remedy it. I have absolutely no idea why he acts in that way - I find it quite bizarre, and out of keeping with what I understood to be his previous behaviour - but that is what he is doing.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

So, which facts Alan, myself, or, as a parallel, SCOTUS justices didn't know when they disagreed? Once again, the same group of people, presented with the same set of facts, will come to a different conclusion. That's a fact.

There is this persistent and pervasive stance that if only one would learn all the facts, they would see the light like the rest of the illuminati. That simply is not true.

Slobodan, please read my post 466.

I don't give much of a damn about Alan's politics; no, actually, I could not care less. The problem I have with him is mainly to do with Brexit, where he has been given the legal facts of what the process means in its two possible versions, over and over again. But it makes no difference: the same effin' question pops up ten minutes later showing that he either has a reading problem, a comprehension problem, or is just plain trolling all of us who are interested in these subjects for whatever reasons. Come to think of it, trolling is quite likely the real reason.

Did you think of that?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... We are not arguing about interpretation of facts; he refuses to accept their very existence...

How do you know that? Which facts he is unaware of? Once again, we are talking past each other. My position is that even if he would read every single fact there is about the case, he, me, and many others, would still come to a different conclusion.

In spite of my already expressed disdain for links to gazillion pages of "facts" as a substitution for summarizing a position in a forum debate, I did click on your link and read your judge friend's opinion. Nothing there adds a novel fact to the case, let alone a smoking gun, which could not be inferred from the journalistic representation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, please read my post 466.

I don't give much of a damn about Alan's politics; no, actually, I could not care less. The problem I have with him is mainly to do with Brexit, where he has been given the legal facts of what the process means in its two possible versions, over and over again. But it makes no difference: the same effin' question pops up ten minutes later showing that he either has a reading problem, a comprehension problem, or is just plain trolling all of us who are interested in these subjects for whatever reasons. Come to think of it, trolling is quite likely the real reason.

Did you think of that?

Yes, Rob, I read that reply before and I read it again now, and I still believe you are wrong, for the reasons I explained in several posts above. As for trolling, my impression is that his posts are nothing of that kind. I occasionally enjoy trolling, as I do not suffer fools gladly, but Alan is a better man than me.

[Rob C]

Yes, Rob, I read that reply before and I read it again now, and I still believe you are wrong, for the reasons I explained in several posts above. As for trolling, my impression is that his posts are nothing of that kind. I occasionally enjoy trolling, as I do not suffer fools gladly, but Alan is a better man than me.

Well, if you still don't see my point, there's not a lot left to say on the matter.

Rob

[Jeremy Roussak]

How do you know that? Which facts he is unaware of? Once again, we are talking past each other. My position is that even if he would read every single fact there is about the case, he, me, and many others, would still come to a different conclusion.

I know that because (a) his representation of the facts is incorrect; and (b) that he has not denied my assertion that he has failed to read the facts.

In spite of my already expressed disdain for links to gazillion pages of "facts" as a substitution for summarizing a position in a forum debate, I did click on your link and read your judge friend's opinion. Nothing there adds a novel fact to the case, let alone a smoking gun, which could not be inferred from the journalistic representation.

It's a judgment, not an opinion.

Then you are entitled to form a different view from mine. I wholly disagree, of course.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I wholly disagree, of course.

I think, Jeremy, that we've fully exhausted different ways in which we disagree. I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that