(02-03-2022 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 06:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 06:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 06:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2022 05:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Then strike the phrase with 'shallow' in it. The rest of the question is pretty straightforward.

Im quite interested in the concept of 'forcing' perspectives into the role of a jurist. Seems quite at odds with the function of a jurist.

And I am quite interested into what the different perspectives race would have an impact on, say, high capacity magazines.

Your answer defending carve-outs rests on these forced inclusions of these perspectives, and I want to learn more on the above in your viewpoint.

I've got no idea what you mean by "forced inclusions of these perspectives."

The comment about high capacity magazines is actually another good example of where perspective and experience could start to inform a jurists' opinion. Scalia wrote in Heller (IIRC) that citizens have a right to use weapons in common use at their time. Someone who is far more familiar with firearms might be more inclined to believe high capacity magazines are in common use, versus a jurist who has never fired a hunting rifle.

Race is not the be all-end all when it comes to personal experience. But it undoubtedly has an impact on one's life and their experiences. I very much would value having a wide-swath of experience on the court.

Jurists aren't supposed to rely on their own experience and knowledge, other than their knowledge of the law. They're supposed to weight the facts in evidence, and it's up to the lawyers on each side to enter those facts. Judges are only human, and no doubt they sometimes let their preconceived notions and what they think they know get in the way of judging the facts in evidence, but that's not them at their best. What you envision as an ideal - high court judges bringing their personal biases and experiences into their rulings as a matter of principal instead of doing their best to avoid doing so - would be a disaster. It happens in lower courts a lot - but that's why appeals courts are necessary.

That’s not what I envision as an ideal.

Yet that is the route you are specifically supporting ---- someone in the judiciary with a predetermined race/sex mix. Because that would bring that 'perspective' to the judiciary.

Great you dont envision it as 'ideal', but you seemingly support the fk out of it. Seems confusing from this perspective.

To be clear, I dont support the 'perspectives' claptrap. I support someone who can objectively rule on the law without reference to their own perspectives and inherent biases. Or to some supposed sociological perspective.

Or, for that matter, any perspective.

I think the *only* perspective should be in 'what steps are necessary' to reach a conclusion.

You know Owl#s agreed with me on the benefit of different perspectives on the court. Any reason you haven’t taken it up with him as well?