> Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views.
Yes. Get nine professionals together to write a subject matter document over a year. I don't care who they are, that document will appear at least superficially put together. I have lots of thoughts/criticism. This isn't the conversation for that, so here's just one of those criticisms:
> Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.
Oh no, drug use and prostitution could be licensed too? Obviously those are terrible and morally repugnant. Backtracking is clearly necessary. What? Why? This isn't the 1970s and the nation isn't 100% on board with Reagan and the war on drugs anymore. A majority of Americans support decriminalizing sex work for example. This point IS contentious, but it's treated as though it's self justifying. It so obviously comes from minds trapped in a bygone era where traditionalist values went unquestioned, where appeals to them were enough.
> Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate.
I'd love to see these studies. I don't know what over/under compensate means in this context or how that says anything about cognitive decline.
> How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature?
The pace of technological progress is increasing. It has surpassed our legislative ability even under the best of circumstances. We aren't in the best of circumstances. Our legislature hasn't effectively represented popular interests for years now [1].
While I agree with the legislature is not representing the people well at all, I disagree on pace of tech change being the reason.
The reason is money. Specifically, bribes are legal here, even encouraged.
The product of that is a government representing money, not the people, and our law says we should be self governed, not lorded over as we have seen happen for quite a while now.
Yes. Get nine professionals together to write a subject matter document over a year. I don't care who they are, that document will appear at least superficially put together. I have lots of thoughts/criticism. This isn't the conversation for that, so here's just one of those criticisms:
> Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.
Oh no, drug use and prostitution could be licensed too? Obviously those are terrible and morally repugnant. Backtracking is clearly necessary. What? Why? This isn't the 1970s and the nation isn't 100% on board with Reagan and the war on drugs anymore. A majority of Americans support decriminalizing sex work for example. This point IS contentious, but it's treated as though it's self justifying. It so obviously comes from minds trapped in a bygone era where traditionalist values went unquestioned, where appeals to them were enough.
> Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate.
I'd love to see these studies. I don't know what over/under compensate means in this context or how that says anything about cognitive decline.
> How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature?
The pace of technological progress is increasing. It has surpassed our legislative ability even under the best of circumstances. We aren't in the best of circumstances. Our legislature hasn't effectively represented popular interests for years now [1].
1. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/