Years ago conservatives were appalled that Larry Flint unanimously won his case after he put up a vile cartoon about Jerry Falwell's mother. Recently the Slant case unanimously made it illegal to deny copyrights to offensive racial names.

When it goes 9-0 against your beliefs do you consider changing your mind? I don't mean changing it as far as what is right and wrong. I just mean changing it as far as what the "correct" ruling should have been. I would think that if you don't, you have a problem. And I'm guessing a lot of you have this problem.

But with the WSOP in full swing I won't be getting into any more protracted arguments about this or any other issue for a few weeks at least. Unless Mason wants me to.

Hey guise, the travel ban is super cool now, right?

Can't remember when it has happened, but if it did I would want to know the grounds for the 8-0 or 9-0 ruling. There would be a good chance that the decision came down to a precedent that they weren't willing to override more or less no matter what the merits of the present case were. In that case, I might not like the decision, but I'd understand why they made it.

In terms of the travel ban, I don't care for the ruling today, but it looks like a "placeholder" until they get to the actual case some time down the road. So from a procedural point of view, I can see why they did it.

MM MD

offensive copyright thing really needed to go. If the people want to change how companies behave and name themselves, then the people need to get off their asses and make change happen

I am not a lawyer and if I had some legal opinion on a Supreme Court case and they ruled 9-0 the other way I would almost certainly change my mind.

I would be surprised if "many" posters here would not.

why would anyone not be heavily inclined to change their mind if the 9 biggest experts in the world on the subject matters all agree.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...t#post52038574

Sklansky genius had Breitbart mentioned to him previously in this context. Would think it would have rung a bell. Also it has been in the news extensively.

It theoretically would depend on the composition of the Court, but if a SCT decision is 9-0, you generally can assume that the answer to the legal question is clear. As you point out, whether an outcome is good policy generally is not determinative of whether a legal decision is correct (although certain common law doctrines incorporate notions of public policy). i

He said "Supreme Court"

Short answer: obviously no.

I hope this question wasn't prompted by the per curim stay of the injunction against the travel ban. That's not a ruling on the merits, it's a temporary stay of enforcement of aspects of the lower court's decision pending review. In that regard it's a unanimous split decision that is as much concerned with politics as the merits. They split the baby, hoping it will be dead in 4 months so everyone can just forget the unpleasant experience. As a general matter, the Supreme Court prefers not to issue major decisions with political implications, especially on an unusual set of facts.

That said, I don't have a strong feeling about the constitutionality of the travel ban. There are decent arguments to be made on both sides. It is, however, terrible policy, and when constitutional questions are close irrational policy supported more by animus than facts should be struck down.

They are not the final appeal because they are right, they are right because they are the final appeal.

Yes but who would be bigger experts? The ppl in the SC have sat on their asses doing this stuff for years and years, you cant come from the outside and somehow have a better idea of how to do their work. Someone from outside the SC have never had their feet wet, not sure how they would do better. Its never going to be 100% unbiased.

This doesn't make much sense. The quote I wrote, which is a paraphrase of a supreme court justice, means that while other courts may actually be right in some platonic sense, the supreme court is, almost by definition, correct in that it is the final appeal.

Sway you about....what, exactly? Legal analysis is a complicated thing. A range of legal principles and lens interpret a body of legal canon stemming from the constitution. Most of us are fairly ignorant about how that works. So if you are asking about the very narrow issue of whether it gives a good indication of how the modern consensus applies on this particular problem, sure it's useful for that. But not much else.

So I'm guessing when you say "And I'm guessing a lot of you have this problem" you are almost certainly confusing this narrow view with some wider view or other.

alright buddy you are the expert, but how about this

yes they are almost right by definition.

however the guys in the SC dont make up their decision just out of thin air. they have a deliberate process where they wield their expertice and experience and knowledge to put alot of objectivity into their decision.

and yes there will likely be a subjective part in there too. but i dont see why anyone outside the SC would be more capable of getting the objective part more right. it helps to have been around the track a few times.

Well, there are plenty of appellate judges, district court judges, law professors, and even lawyers, who are at least as capable as most Supreme Court justices. There are and have been great justices, but it is, after all, a political appointment.

That said, if one is not an expert or even a lawyer, it is of course best to assume they are correct, particularly when they issue an actual 9-0 opinion.

However, for example, the SCt hears on average one patent case every couple of years (there has been an uptick in the last 5 years). While most SCt judges know a lot about constitutional law, few know much about patent law, and it's often the case that the patent bar is forced to wedge whatever square peg opinion the SCt issues into the existing structure of patent law. As Thomas writes probably half the patent opinions, it's often not easy.

Everyone on SCOTUS had a very good LSAT score so yes

Well I wouldn't argue that their view isn't the correct application of the law as it stands but I may continue to argue that the law as it stands is wrong.

David says thats not relevant in this thread.

Sure but then the premise is kinda silly, if you are taking a strong position regarding the correct interpretation of law and you aren't an expert in the field it shouldn't matter whether the SC finds for a position unanimously or not, you should probably accept that a dissenter in an 8-1 decision knows a damn site more law than you.

thats great buddy, but i dont think i care.

simplicitus and David claims to be experts in law so i would rather talk to them.

Then don't reply?

i was just stating a fact, what David set to be the premise of the thread. If you want to think thats silly then discuss that with him and not me.

Then don't reply the 2nd or 3rd time?

David, yes a person should change their mind if there is a consensus among experts as to the correct interpretation of law. However non experts taking strong lines on the correct interpretation of law where there is no consensus is also indicative of a problem.