[SolaceQuantum]

> I've found helpful to read the official opinion of opinions I disagree with. Start to finish, including the dissent. With respect to modern rulings, I have yet to walk away finding the arguments abysmal. In almost every case, I disagree with the law, not the court.

My impressions from the podcasts of actual law professors and lawyers is that there are various interpretations of the law that trend towards liberal or conservative values, and the strategic dressing of how the law is read is itself a political strategy to legitimize a political reasoning as an apolitical law analysis.

For example, the choice of a judge to read only the text and law as it is written (textualism) without caring about the general context as to why it exists or the effects of the law in modern day can often be used to ignore the actual injustice occurring as a result of a law that doesn't actually produce just outcomes even when the supposed intention is such. It's arguably pedantry.

But when the same purely text-based reading is applied for progressive arguments, as in the hearings for sex-based discrimination, the conservative justices have abruptly shifted their questions to be concerned about the societal effects (bathrooms) or the original intention of the law (originalism). This sort of flip-flopping of evaluation strategies is often used as a basis of argument that while there are multiple reading frameworks of law, the actual frameworks used are often for political/personal purposes and judges are proposed based off their conservative or liberal bent in analysis.

[kube-system]

I don't think the subjectivity of a politicized situation is evidence of politically motivated subjectivity. I think it is adequately explained by the inherent subjectivity involved with human interpretation.

To illustrate: nearly everyone varies their frameworks for justification, even when the situation is clearly apolitical.

e.g. Even a mother raising a child will use these justifications frameworks interchangeably as needed. I can hear my mother now:

* "Why? Because I said so" (textualism)

* "Be nice and share with your sister" (societal effects)

* "You know what I meant" (originalism)

[pmiller2]

You have to consider as well that SCOTUS justices are lifetime political appointees. There is definitely a trend in their opinions toward the same end of the spectrum as the President who nominated them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...

[abdullahkhalids]

As a scientist, this is how scientists also behave when there is disagreement. Humans will be human.

As long as courts remain within reasonable bounds of "filling in the holes", that is good enough. And we can think about improving the process.

[SkyBelow]

That is perhaps my largest issue with science. On controversial topics, the level of criticism is not equally applied.

It is even worse when we talk about what science filters down to the average voter, as even in cases where the scientists may be fair in their criticism, the public eye is still selective and given unequal weight to certain criticisms.

[pmiller2]

We are lucky that fundamental disagreements, for the most part, don’t happen in pure mathematics.