(02-04-2022 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the 'tell':

Quote:And I imagine that along with one's education, one's former jobs, etc. that a lot of personal experiences play roles in how the cases play out in question and how a Justice comes to their decision.

From what source do you jump to that conclusion?

The judges I know would be fairly torqued off at that assessment. In fact, they go to great pains to not do so. And, in fact, their decisions are devoid of that. That is the skillset of a jurist. One that I see day in and day out.

But, here you go making a baseless (most likely wholly uniformed) comment on it. I am glad your supposition (fairly ungrounded one at that) supports your defense of 'perspective' in your own mind. But I just noticed that it is most likely one that is pretty much an unsupported shot in the dark.

Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means a large role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

Plays a large role?

You pulled that one out of thin air.

Not especially. Does 'plays a large enough role to be substantive' work better for you?

As an aside on your push back on 'large', if substantive, that is by definition 'large' considering what a judge does. And, if not substantive, then there is zero basis for a XYZ perspective, and thus, zero basis for a racially deterministic choice to which you defend.

But again, you sidestep and avoid the real issue with the sub-issue of 'large'. Lets just say 'substantive' to placate your issue and get back to the question at hand.

Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means at least some substantive role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

Better for you?

Tanq, would you say that #'s is the great proponent of "geographical make-up and diversity of law-school education means at least some substantive role in how cases are resolved"?

How do you feel about his stance?

I do think that specific legal backgrounds *do* have a bearing on how cases are resolved.

As I noted before, differences in verdicts and rulings can occur :

Quote: [b]ecause there are honest disagreements on both 'what the language says', and 'how the language *should* be assessed', and sometimes 'where the power comes from', and 'what power/right is implicated'.

.

To that I would add 'the relative rankings of powers and rights' --- some think the 2nd amendment is still not accorded the relative rank/power of a fundamental right given the manner in which they approach the specific 'test' of a state or local statute.

Each of those is a function of legal and judicial philosophy, and legal background does have an impact on which is accorded. Kind of like if you go to a Baptist seminary, you most likely are not going to find your vocation as a rabbi or an imam. Or if you go to a madrasa, most likely you are going to view both Mohammed and Jesus Christ as prophets, and not view only Jesus Christ as the prophet.

Law schools can be the cornerstone to philosophies of US law. So yes, I see #s point there as to law schools, since they are the purveyors and teachers of both the philosophical framework of the US legal system, and the rendering of justice under that.

Geographies --- perhaps I dont see that as much as #s. That is a huge step away from the cornerstone of *legal* perspective that is at issue in *where* that legal perspective came from.

Even less so with lad's stance with racial perspectives being germane to the delivery of justice.