not sure why i should not. i was talking about one thing specifically, a fact from Davids first post and a limitation imposed to this thread by OP. its hard to be wrong when stating facts. are you a troll or just dumber than average.

Because you would rather not talk to me about it which is fine but you're kinda being **** at not talking to me about it. All you have to do is not reply.

im avoiding the specific discussion you wanted that would evolve into being about Law.

but i will still defend my claim that Sklansky decided that that this is not a thread about "right or wrong".

those are two different "discussions".

i couldnt imagine that you would ramble on and on and never settle when im stating a fact. your head is a mess.

Do you think the protests are about the constitutionality of the travel ban?

Nah I accepted that in my second reply to you which resulted in you declaring you had no interest in continuing a discussion you've yet to find the ability to put down.

i havent discussed anything outside of that one fact i was defending.
given that its a very simple fact, and the discussion havent stopped yet, i think its says a few things about you.

im going to have to filter you for wasting my time unfortunately.

David,

Do unanimous politics forum opinions about the quality of your posting sway you?

I would think that if you don't, you have a problem. And I'm guessing you have this problem.

Oh that's good.

Actually my opinions instantaneously update according to a weighted Bayesian function based on Supreme Court voting splits on all issues.

You must believe some very strange things like 2/9ths of the time. Or maybe you believe 2/9ths of some very strange things. I don't understand Bayes.

A 9-0 SC ruling might not get me to change my own mind, but it would sure as **** resign me to the fact that **** ain't changing in my lifetime.

If the Supreme Court is acting professionally, they aren't deciding what is right and wrong, rather whether something is legal/constitutional. It's quite easy for something to be completely legal and completely immoral, or completely illegal and plainly moral.

Some of their most controversial decisions, regarding segregation or sodomy laws, have to be viewed in this light. In some cases the morally offensive decision is far more defendable from a legal point of view than most detractors like to admit. The problem is that the law/constitution underlying the decision was bad.

To answer the question more directly: the Supreme Court aren't for the most part idiots, and when they all agree on something I take the decision more seriously than when they don't. If they rule 9-0 on something and I don't like the outcome, I conclude that the decision is probably correct with respect to the law (because of the unanimity), and so therefore the law is probably bad, since I don't like the outcome. Such a judgment presupposes that I have an informed opinion about the merits of the objectives of the law.

They'd make me rethink my position if I had a strong dissenting opinion.