do you have proof? I have been able to segregate my personal and emotional beliefs and make logical decisions in my own life many times in the past.

I think it's more a result of the original constitution needing unanimous approval from the original 13 States.

Maybe in a vacuum, but pound-for-pound, I would take Ginsburg.

John Roberts for me. Haven't agreed with everything he has done on the court, but he certainly isn't playing partisan politics up there.

Breyer is a big fan of incorporating foreign law into his decisions which is frankly just the WOAT. That practice enables a justice that has a predetermined decision in mind to go out and cherry pick whatever foreign laws support his or her desired outcome, and that ability is not something I'm comfortable giving to our judiciary.

you may think you have, but you haven't really.

hint: placebos work.

2nd hint: double-blind audio testing proves people "hear things" they really don't hear.

3rd hint: most important. they actually study **** like this, y'know, and have mapped the various parts of the brain that activate during decision making.

i'm not gonna do your research for you. you've come into this thread, admit you know very little about the subject at hand, and state strong opinions over and over. there's this thing called the "internet" and this website called "google". use them.

you are a human being. you CANNOT eliminate your emotions/biases when it comes to decision making. we don't "work" that way.

none of this testing is exhaustive nor does any of it prove that emotions and morals can't be ignored or reasoned away even when they are activated.

You can dispassionately decide the answer to a math question, but values affect the decisions we are talking about and values are all about emotion.

but you can still push them to the side and argue or rule in favor of a point you don't believe in if it is logically sound.

True but you can make a difference to how much emotions/bias impact your decisions and we can recognise tying to minimise it as a good thing.

It gets sort of squirrelly, but ultimately this will come down to how exactly you define emotional reasoning or whatever. We all understand plainly what it means to be affected by emotional bias, but when you talk about 'putting aside' or 'reasoning away' emotions, what exactly are you referring to? There is no actual experiential referent you can point to, and I suspect that's because "pushing aside emotions" and the like are, in fact, merely special cases of the exact same emotional reasoning that everybody uses all the time.

So we imagine a judge ruling on some point of law. Her own personal political beliefs strongly favour ruling in some particular way. The arguments are close, and she is aware that she could rule either way and likely not be challenged, but the side she favours has a slightly weaker case - a case, let's say, that requires slightly more charity in order to be credited. It's not by 'pushing aside emotions' that this judge will rule against the outcome she would prefer, but rather by indulging her emotional attachment to the judicial process.

So I think that when you're talking about 'pushing aside emotions', you should really be talking about pushing aside partiality and/or self-interest. It's a far easier row to hoe and I believe it's also more accurate.

There is no logical answer to most questions. You start with values. The real world does not have a set of axioms which constitute truth. And if you choose axioms because you feel like they are best, then take elaborate logical journeys based on those axioms, you still end up somewhere wholly based on feelings. And, you may well contradict the values you based your axioms on. That is why Scalia ends up being an originalist when it suits his purpose and otherwise not.

this is a good post. I do agree that pushing off partiality and self interest in favor of making judgments without regard for personal beliefs is what I am trying to explain. Rationality, logic, and reason can prevail even when you are partial to or self-interested in a side that conflicts with these things.

sure, and trying is the right thing. and there are conscious biases* that you can make an attempt to control (e.g. i prefer black raspberry ice cream, but can judge the quality of other flavors of ice cream). other conscious biases vary in our ability to control them, but they can usually be put aside in day to day decision making.

but you'll never suppress your subconscious biases/beliefs, and for the most part, you'll likely not even know they are there.

again, human beings ain't spock. we don't have the ability to think in that manner. we aren't "logic machines", even though we sometimes think we are.

* fwiw, "bias" in this context isn't meant with a negative connotation. possibly that is being missed by the other poster.

Fair enough. And this goes to the heart of what I was asking. I would probably be on the other side (preferring conservative justices), but I realize that would not be good for the whole as neither side ever has a monopoly on good ideas and I want as many segments of the population represented as possible.

Real Q is how many conservatives like me and liberals like you feel the same way. And I am afraid the answer is "not many".

i share your answer to the real question. and it makes me sad as well. unfortunately, the way the lines are drawn today and with the way politics are played, the "you are for us or against us" vs. "we disagree, but lets work together for the good of all" wins out with the majority.

hell, look at what is going on right now. the gop has basically said "obama, you cannot appoint a scotus justice, even though it is your job to do so, because we have reasons why you can't".

Yeah I know. Not good at all and likely to get worse before it gets better no matter who wins the next election. It is really disappointing and the worst part is I (and I am sure you) feel powerless to change it.

I agree that a balanced court is optimal, but think 9 moderates would be pretty bad. The extreme viewpoints from both sides ought to be part of the discussion on a given case. I'd consider optimal to be 2 rabid liberals, 2 rabid conservatives, and 5 moderates.

I'd find it hard to be sad about a 7-2 liberal edge though, even while intellectually seeing the problems with imbalance.

obama and first lady paying respects. why is he drinking a beer? "What's with the outfits? You guys going to a volleyball game or something?" (pulp fiction ftw) nah they were in black and no beverages (during the event anyways)

this is a good point and I revise my previous stance. I think 1 on the liberal and conservative extreme, 1 consistent liberal and conservative, 1 that leans liberal and conservative, and 3 true moderates is actually ideal.

why would you not believe in something which is logically sound?

yeah. and it is disappointing. the only way to really change it is from the bottom up, and the young generation wants to try to change it from the top down.

that's a bit of "waving cane at clouds", but its pretty much how i feel.

i'd buy into that.

yeah, i wouldn't be sad either, at least for a few years so we could ram some stuff through.

based on sound logic, or just feelings?

seems like you havent put much thought into any of this, which is kind of ironic imo

because morality is not based on logic

based on the logic he provided that diverse viewpoints should be heard and balance through diversity makes more sense than balance based on 9 people representing the median.

You make it sound like Breyer is just sitting there saying, "well Congress passed this law, but Japan does it this way, so I guess it's a tie" but that's not how it works...

- When determing if something constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, shouldn't the court be able to consider the fact that an overwhelming majority of countries have banned tge practice specifically because of its cruelty?

- When interpreting a treaty, shouldn't SCOTUS be able to consider how other signatories interpret that treaty, or do we just call our own shots?

- When Scalia starts saying that Western Civilization has never accrpted homosexuality, is it wrong to say, "look, Antonin, I'm gonna let you finish, but Western Europe has had some of the greatest gay weddings of all time."

International law shouldn't be a trump card, and not all cases should use it, but it's absolutely an important contextual tool in some situations.