chrysostom’s 2015 annual awards

[Town Heretic]

so you will not mention even one of the liberal judges

It's not a serious question. Like asking me repeatedly to name a conservative justice. Not playing a game that's beneath me isn't problematic for me. It's only problematic for you.

That's part of your problem. The other part being issuing an invitation to discussion on a topic that now appears to have been disingenuous, causing me to waste time putting together an answer you weren't actually interested in talking about.

and how they got on the court is out of the question?

The same way the Roe Court got on the bench. But if you didn't want to discuss the thing you set before me a while back you shouldn't have wasted my time trying to use it to walk me down a path we've already worn into the earth: your irrational advance about destroying an entire ideological mindset instead of advancing on a point that can be won.

 

[chrysostom]

this is what town does not want to talk about

Major Supreme Court Cases in 2015

15 court cases where the four liberals voted as a block
clinton and obama put them on the court
town doesn't want to talk about these cases
it shows what you get when you elect a democratic president

town just wants to talk about what happened 40 years ago

 

[Town Heretic]

this is what town does not want to talk about

Darn, chrys, now you're just sounding crazy. You asked if I agreed with the liberals on the Court in any decisions and I noted two as a point of beginning.

You didn't evidence any interest in that and now, a couple of posts after I complained on the point you're acting as though you were waiting and I was reluctant. Here's a better idea: next time ask me the question you actually want answered and if you have a link like that post it and say, "What do you think about these?"

15 court cases where the four liberals voted as a block

This is the first I'm hearing from you about it. Supra.

clinton and obama put them on the court
town doesn't want to talk about these cases

That's just dishonest, supra. Neither of your statements in any part reflect the truth about my engagement or interest.

it shows what you get when you elect a democratic president
town just wants to talk about what happened 40 years ago

The last time you got a Court primarily put there by conservatives? It's one point worth making, to be sure.

You might also want to look beyond 2015...well, no, you wouldn't, because prior to this year the general impression of the Court has been that it's one of the more conservative Courts in the past forty years and counting.

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay, let's run them down.

Glossip v Gross: I'm against the death penalty, but I haven't read the opinion so I don't know that I'd be aligned with the minority dissent.

Obergefell v. Hodges: I just spoke to that one in the post you mostly ignored.

King v. Burwell: I agree with the reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts. He wrote the opinion and the "liberals" who worry you joined it, along with Kennedy. He rightly noted the ambiguity in the law, read as those opposing the Affordable Healthcare Act would have it "...would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”


Next up, when I return:

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

I may answer the rest in my legal thread. This doesn't seem like the right venue. I'll link over when I get back. Jack needs serious play attention.

Continued and repeated in my legal notes thread (link).

 

[chrysostom]

Okay, let's run them down.

Glossip v Gross: I'm against the death penalty, but I haven't read the opinion so I don't know that I'd be aligned with the minority dissent.

Obergefell v. Hodges: I just spoke to that one in the post you mostly ignored.

King v. Burwell: I agree with the reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts. He wrote the opinion and the "liberals" who worry you joined it, along with Kennedy. He rightly noted the ambiguity in the law, read as those opposing the Affordable Healthcare Act would have it "...would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”


Next up, when I return:

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

I may answer the rest in my legal thread. This doesn't seem like the right venue. I'll link over when I get back. Jack needs serious play attention.

Continued and repeated in my legal notes thread (link).

thank you for taking the time to do that
correct me if I am wrong
but
you agreed with the liberal judges in 12 of the 15 cases
so
that does make you a liberal
right?

 

[chrysostom]

sophist of the year 2015

and the nominees are:

Clete

the first nominee Clete is based on this thread

The Paradigm Effect

it is a good example of a sophist argument

 

[Town Heretic]

thank you for taking the time to do that

Not a problem. Too bad you couldn't answer in the more appropriate thread. But I understand the need you have here.

correct me if I am wrong but you agreed with the liberal judges in 12 of the 15 cases

Happy to correct you. You're wrong. I agreed with the majority decision in most of the cases. Roberts, no liberal, by way of example, issued one in King that I agreed with. The liberals were in block agreement. So Roberts should be called a liberal? Or the issuer of a liberal position?

Not if you're rational. And that's the problem with your thinking here. At least with your aim.

I believe the only time I dissented from the majority was in accord with the conservative block and once in a singular solidarity with Thomas against the majority, but that's off the top of my head. I'll go check that in a bit.

so that does make you a liberal right?

No. My record would more closely resemble someone from the right, as with Thomas, who could vote with that block depending on their reasoning or for his own and less like one of the left, who voted with a united voice in by and large every case.

There was a unified conservative opinion on only four cases. In Glossip I had no professional opinion, having no familiarity with the case or holding, though I oppose the DP on ethical grounds.

In the EPA cases I side unhappily with the conservatives.
In Reed I concur (as did the left and swing).
Same goes for Holt. That would put me 3-0-1 if you were as determined to make me out a conservative, which I'm also not.

With me it's all about judicial reasoning.

 

[chrysostom]

thank you for taking the time to do that
correct me if I am wrong
but
you agreed with the liberal judges in 12 of the 15 cases

Happy to correct you. You're wrong. I agreed with the majority decision in most of the cases. Roberts, no liberal, by way of example, issued one in King that I agreed with. The liberals were in block agreement. So Roberts should be called a liberal? Or the issuer of a liberal position?

forget about roberts
in all 15 cases the liberals voted as a block
did you not agree with the liberal position in 12 of those cases?

 

[Town Heretic]

forget about roberts
in all 15 cases the liberals voted as a block
did you not agree with the liberal position in 12 of those cases?

Rather, forget about an irrational attempt to paint me by using numbers that don't actually manage it.

Of course you want me (or, more accurately, others) to forget that I'm agreeing with Roberts or Thomas, or that on unified conservative positions from the bench I favored their approach on every case where I knew the particulars...because that doesn't match up with your desire on the point.

Stop being led around by the nose by your bias. What you're smelling is in your noggin.

Like I said, the liberal end of the Court voted the same on everything that it ran into. The conservative end divided on a number of decisions. Were I casting a vote in the mix my card would have more closely resembled the conservative wing in practice.

And that, as much as you obviously don't like it, remains the objective truth.

 

[Totton Linnet]

...I nominate my ol pal ALWIGHT as Sophist of the year 2016......

 

[Totton Linnet]

...no chance of getting Chrys's ol pal Cruciform picked....the very master of the subtle art of sophistry.

 

[chrysostom]

...I nominate my ol pal ALWIGHT as Sophist of the year 2016......

not clever enough

...no chance of getting Chrys's ol pal Cruciform picked....the very master of the subtle art of sophistry.

not fallacious

 

[Totton Linnet]

Titter

 

[rainee]

Uhm, hmm.
I don't want to seem stupid or a moron, but...
I don't actually know what titter means...?

Nor who the four liberal judges are who vote in a block...
So I hope Chrys will say - at least their initials - if we're in need of subterfuge!

 

[bybee]

Uhm, hmm.
I don't want to seem stupid or a moron, but...
I don't actually know what titter means...?

Nor who the four liberal judges are who vote in a block...
So I hope Chrys will say - at least their initials - if we're in need of subterfuge!

Titter is a tiny little chuckle one hides behind a hand to the face.
One feels that one ought not to laugh in a given situation but just can't help it?

 

[Rusha]

Titter is a tiny little chuckle one hides behind a hand to the face.
One feels that one ought not to laugh in a given situation but just can't help it?

Like when someone stubs their toe and their facial expression is so funny that you burst out laughing?

 

[rainee]

Thank you thank you Bybee!
And Rusha! Tho the " burst out laughing" isnot really quite the same as as stifling
The urge, I guess...:shocked:

 

[Totton Linnet]

Titter is a tiny little chuckle one hides behind a hand to the face.
One feels that one ought not to laugh in a given situation but just can't help it?

Like the thought of Cruciform not being fallacious ... mind I have had some decent interchanges with Cruce...he would not hesitate to hang the term fallacious on me

 

[bybee]

Like when someone stubs their toe and their facial expression is so funny that you burst out laughing?

Yes, then run like the dickens!:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Like the thought of Cruciform not being fallacious ... mind I have had some decent interchanges with Cruce...he would not hesitate to hang the term fallacious on me

I think chrys should drop the Sophist award and present something more interesting...a Sophomorist award, maybe, to the poster who has been here long enough to know better but still trots out the old dead horse arguments.

How long do you think chrys is going to drag this out. We're approaching a record, I think. Isn't this at about 44 days and counting?