Message from @Undead Mockingbird
Discord ID: 497748471214768129
I was discussing Brett with a far left friend the other day. He gave me this link.
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5416084/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh
I read through it and came away with a far different take away
He believes it says and the video shows that this ex scotus judge thinks Brett is biased and should not be chosen.
However when I read it I came away with the opinion that this judge thinks Brett is qualified. Just that when half of the country attacks him. He is no longer unbiased to half the country
Ah John Paul Stevens, he's been rather politically active for a former justice recently. He's the one who thought we should get rid of the 2nd amendment
You're probably reading it finer than your friend.
It's hammer time!
His response to my opinion.
Let us not argue about this, or other political things. I appreciate a bit of debate but as i said elsewhere, i dont support him because Trump.
Lol. Yeah, that's logic for you.
Wait, but bias is on part of the judge, not on part of people judging HIM.
100% of the population can think him biased, but he still wouldn't have to be.
Whether he is biased is in HIS application of the law, not someone's else's view.
I am totally confused.
"protect the institution from the perception of bias"
From the perception of bias?
I'd rather protect it from actual bias.
Which is never going to really happen as long as the politicians politicize the nomination process.
Yeah well, the news media has a bias that it wants implemented.
It sure does.
I'd rather have a fair judge that everyone thinks biased than the other way around.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, the left tends (and has really always tended) towards "win by any means necessary" for some time and has politicized the courts for decades.
And they'll fight over any ground they can.
So they're fighting to control the courts.
I am unsure what the negative outcome is from perceived court bias.
Unrest.
Much of it is is due to accepting equality of outcome.
I think it's actually deeper.
Equality of outcome was not even fair if I was the only one subject to it.
It is due to a belief in "caring for the weak" and being morally justified in everything.
If I did twice as much work than the year prior, I'd expect to get paid twice as much.
you know fellas
My pay does not even have to compare to anyone else's.
sometimes Donald Trump is not that great
"The right sees the left as wrong; the left sees the right as evil."
Equality of outcome is one of the most harebrained economic models you could choose.
It only sounds fair to a toddler.
As such the left believes it is the hero and will do anything it needs to win.
Equality of outcome for unequal work means that whoever worked harder got less per unit of time!
Actually, it doesn't even seem fair to toddlers. We have experiments proving toddlers hate equality of outcome.
It's only fair to statisticians, bureaucrats and academics