Support NeoGAF

[Freeza Under The Shower]

from the article:

But maybe this allergy to statistical evidence is really a smoke screen — a convenient way to make a decision based on ideology while couching it in terms of practicality.

”I don't put much stock in the claim that the Supreme Court is afraid of adjudicating partisan gerrymanders because it's afraid of math," Daniel Hemel, who teaches law at the University of Chicago, told me. ”[Roberts] is very smart and so are the judges who would be adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims — I'm sure he and they could wrap their minds around the math. The ‘gobbledygook' argument seems to be masking whatever his real objection might be."

Honestly that is exactly what it reads like to me. A simple calculus tied an argument should not elicit that type of response.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

I did not expect the conservative justices to have strands of anti-intellectualism, but, nonetheless, here we are. I expected the courts to be above that.

Silly me. I need to stop being surprised and having standards.

 

[nynt9]

from the article:



Honestly that is exactly what it reads like to me. A simple calculus tied an argument should not elicit that type of response.

If you pay attention, the liberal judges who were in favor used this argument too.

 

[Monocle]

Our highest judges should not be anti intellectuals. What the fuck.

Pretty much my reaction. One more reason this country is in trouble.

I did not expect the conservative justices to have strands of anti-intellectualism, but, nonetheless, here we are. I expected the courts to be above that.

Silly me. I need to stop being surprised and having standards.

Conservative is practically synonymous with anti-intellectual.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I think there's a reasonable middle point between very specific statistician language and lay terms. The problem is that right now we're all the way to the latter to the point that any empirical information is shunned. That's not acceptable.

The point I'm trying to make is that the issue is not as simple as there just being a bunch of old lawyers who don't want to learn science/statistics. The law already does incorporate scientific/statistical reasoning, and there is more space to improve that integration to be sure, but beyond that is a more foundational issue with how the law is structured and designed. It's not just an issue of word choice, it's one of precepts.

Science and more specifically statistical maths *can* offer a yes/no answer. What it doesn't offer is an absolute assertion applicable for all of time, which the law does, which is why you get such crappy laws in regard to modern technical fields. Those judges that actually challenge interpretations of previously held legal assertions are called "activist" judges, a term which is often used in a negative context.

My point is that a statistical/scientific 'yes' and a legal 'yes' are very different things that do not always cross-pollinate. The legal system has both a proficiency problem with statistics and a more philosophic objection to it playing a major in adjudications that were not originally designed around its use.

 

[Sean C]

The article overstates skepticism of statistics as the driving force. The conservative judges' objection to the statistical modeling is a mix of partisanship (Republicans are the ones doing most of the gerrymandering at the moment, so they stand to benefit from its continuance) and the philosophical belief that courts should stay out of these sorts of things. The skepticism of the mathematical evidence is just a rhetorical flourish.

Note that Breyer, the liberal judge quoted as being unfamiliar with stats, is still presumed to be voting in favour anyway.

 

[old]

Supreme Court justices should not be allowed to serve past 65 and they should have term limits.

 

[Balphon]

What would you sugggest?

Nominating someone to the Court who didn't go to Harvard or Yale would be a start.

There are bound to be eminently qualified jurists out there whose resume doesn't read Harvard/Yale JD -> Clerkship -> Office of the Solicitor General/Academia -> Federal Bench.

 

[Bronetta]

This is what happens when you put out of touch 70 year old seniles in charge.

Fuck off and retire so you can stop choking the job market and the younger generation can find work.

 

[Earthbound64]

Nominating someone to the Court who didn't go to Harvard or Yale would be a start.

There are bound to be eminently qualified jurists out there whose resume doesn't read Harvard/Yale JD

If you could, why wouldn't you go to Harvard or Yale?

Also, "There are bound to be eminently qualified jurists out there whose resume doesn't read Harvard/Yale JD"?
Yeah, and there are also numerous eminently qualified jurists out there whose résumés do read Harvard/Yale JD, but who don't make it to the Supreme Court.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Better than a Supreme Court Justice who writes, "[black men] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" or those that ruled against Korematsu, though, right?

One doesn't undo or mitigate the other.

 

[Cagey]

you could just not always nominate people from the same inbred set of Ivy League schools

Nominating someone to the Court who didn't go to Harvard or Yale would be a start.

There are bound to be eminently qualified jurists out there whose resume doesn't read Harvard/Yale JD -> Clerkship -> Office of the Solicitor General/Academia -> Federal Bench.

Replacing Harvard or Yale with Stanford or Columbia, or Georgetown and UVa, or WashU and Fordham, or Penn State and Rutgers, doesn't achieve much.

• The education you get at T6 schools is the same, and the professors almost all attended T6 schools.
• The education you get at the bottom half of the T14 is the same as the T6 schools, but with slightly less credentialed professors who mostly attended HYS.
• The education you get at tier 1 schools will have more of a regional, practice-of-law focus than the above, with slightly less credentialed professors who attended T14 schools.
• The education you get at tier 2 schools will be significantly more practice-of-law oriented, almost trade school like, with slightly less credentialed professors who attended Tier 1 schools.

What's the point of the above broadbrush stroke description? What you're seeking, a diversity of viewpoint based on not attending the same "inbred" schools, doesn't exist.

The differences that exist between the education offered at different law schools, best understood as tiers/levels of schools, are almost entirely on the jurisprudential v. practice continuum, and given the choice between the two, you want the former on the bench of the SCOTUS, not the latter. You'd want the latter, and not the former, in state or federal trial courts.

If you seek ideological diversity, which I doubt, then the diversity you'd seek is actually from more conservative-leaning (or, more accurately, not-as-stridently-liberal) faculties at, say, Chicago.

 

[SolarPowered]

I hope you're right. It'll be a bombshell if it is 5-4. It will devastate the republican party for years to come. This makes me think that it'll go the other way. The Supreme Court is reluctant to make decisions with direct, large political consequences.

He is. The liberal judges are already convinced that redistricting needs to be fixed, so they need one more vote. This case was specifically crafted for Kennedy, who specifically asked for a formula. Now it's just a matter if he thinks what he's been presented with will fix the issue.

It is unbelievable how close we were to a slam dunk fix too. Had Hillary won and picked moderate Merrick Garland the political landscape would be looking so much fairer that we wouldn't be pinning all our hopes on a single judge. McConnell and Republicans will surely regret nuking the SCOTUS filibuster down the road.

 

[The Lamp]

I know proud ignorance and ineptitude at the quantitative fields is strong in the USA, but I never thought I would hear the highest court make light of their incompetence.

This country is so bad at numbers its hilarious. Or at least it would be, if our highest court wasn't bad at it either

 

[Balphon]

The differences that exist between the education offered at different law schools, best understood as tiers/levels of schools, are almost entirely on the jurisprudential v. practice continuum, and given the choice between the two, you want the former on the bench of the SCOTUS, not the latter. You'd want the latter, and not the former, in state or federal trial courts.

I understand what you're saying, but your point seems conclusory. Why do we want the former manning the federal appellate bench, at least at the highest level?

In any event, though, it's not just a matter of diplomas; they're simply an easy thing to call out. My basic point is that the fact that we act like there is only one valid career track meriting consideration for placement on the SCOTUS or even a Circuit Court creates a uniformity in those bodies which limits their ability to react to broader changes in law, culture, science, etc. This doesn't mean I want Harriet Miers 2.0 on the Court, but I think at least broadening of candidate pools for those positions would ultimately be beneficial.

If you seek ideological diversity, which I doubt, then the diversity you'd seek is actually from more conservative-leaning (or, more accurately, not-as-stridently-liberal) faculties at, say, Chicago.

The Court isn't lacking in ideological diversity, and really never has been. Hell, most commentary on it these days seems to simply assume that the Court is and should be fundamentally based around an ideological tug-of-war.

 

[Chichikov]

Honestly, the whole legal framework is an outdated garbage that in a perfect world would be burned to the ground and built up from scratch.

If you want your laws to be written in a clear and unambiguous way that is not open to ideological interpretation than you can easily do it, linguistics build such systems for fun and fuck, even computer scientists can do that. And both can do it in a way that is way easier to understand for a layman than what we currently have.
If you want your laws to be a broad framework that are interpreted based on the changing conditions of our society, then do we really want lawyers to be the ones who do that interpretations?

But we keep electing lawyers...