(11-22-2022 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 10:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  When I said "It sucks that both liberal and conservative judges are actively being lobbied by special interest groups" the right winger response seems to be "LIBERAL JUDGES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS!!!". I agree that this makes sense but this is put forward as a statement of fact without any actual data to support it. It also misses my original point that it seems crazy that there is apparently an active ecosystem of lobbying judges.

I am surprised that any oversight into this lobbying effort is met with derision by some as an example of government micromanagement. It seems that dark money lobbying efforts have been a disaster in general for our political system.

I didn’t say liberal judges are more susceptible. I said judges selected because they are more susceptible will be more susceptible. How much clearer can I make it?

Yes! Which Tanq and I have said also -- many, many times.

Lad and 93, please get this through your heads: if you want to limit the influence of policy partisans on judges (the "active ecosystem" that concerns you), the one - the only - sure way is to limit the influence of judges on policy. THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT CONCEPT that differentiates political "progressives" from political conservatives, nor is there anything that requires exceptional nobility or virtue (the red herring that Lad has trotted out). So why keep dishonestly claiming that anyone is insisting on such distinctions?

I was giving y'all the benefit of the doubt that you weren't starting at such a simple place, but rather were commenting on the differences in political philosophy between liberal and conservative jurists. We've heard regularly about how you and other conservatives believe that liberal jurists (I am paraphrasing here) basically make it up as they go.

If you're simply saying that liberal and conservative jurists are not inherently different, then no disagreement here.

For Pete's sake, we've been through this ad nauseam and you still don't seem to get it: judicial restraint/activism and political conservatism/"progressivism" are different concepts.
- When you say that that we were "commenting on the differences in political philosophy between liberal and conservative jurists", you are not "giving the benefit of the doubt"; in fact, you are exactly wrong -- our comments have been about judicial approach, not political philosophy.
- When you conflate the two, you are not "paraphrasing" anything Frizzy or I said; you are distorting (whether intentionally or obtusely) everything we have said.

I'm honestly stunned that you keep missing this completely, as if a squadron of airplanes were zooming 30,000 feet above your head. And not just once, but time after time after time.