Posted on 05/07/2020 1:51:02 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Authoring a unanimous Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tore into the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for "drastically" straying from judicial norms when hearing a case involving a California immigration consultant.
After Evelyn Sineneng-Smith had been convicted of violating a federal law related to encouraging illegal immigration, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, not based on arguments presented by Sineneng-Smith, but by third parties the court brought in to submit arguments that the panel of judges themselves had suggested.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good synopsis, thank you!
“Satan is plenty intelligent, but made wrong conclusions. Plenty of intelligent scientists make wrong conclusions because they had a bad data input that rendered void their painstakingly accurate calculations.”
Really? It seems to you that what you have said here is in any way relevant to what I said?
Gee, it shows me that she is alive! We think....
Straying from judicial norms? Isn’t that ironic.
Ginsberg can’t eviscerate a bowl of jello, much less anything else.
When RBG is against you, you know the failure is epic.
LOL
The 9th Circuit panel had two Clinton and one Obama appointees.
“Yes. You stated that lefties by definition are not intelligent because they arrive at wrong conclusions.”
Don’t go rewriting what I said to make it easier to refute. Leave that to the woketards. I said “A person isn’t intelligent unless they *can* ponder reality and arrive at correct conclusions.”
I didn’t say that a person who occasionally makes a mistake cannot be intelligent, as you imply.
“I gave examples of persons who arrive at wrong conclusions who are intelligent.”
Firstly, Satan is a supernatural being, and therefore not a part of this discussion.
Secondly, it seems too obvious to need mentioning that I was not talking about scientists who occasionally arrive at an incorrect experimental result, but rather the realm of human experience in which the term “lefties” has meaning. E.g., political philosophy vice physics.
RBG might do well on an IQ test, but remains a “leftie” despite all her exposure to questions of political philosophy. This is a crashing, resounding, catastrophic failure of intelligence.
Stephen Hawking was apparently a genius in certain scientific disciplines, but allowed his academic co-conspirators to whipsaw him into making a statement that there is no God. Again, a catastrophic failure of intelligence.
Most of academia would probably esteem mathematical intelligence to be more important than the kind of intelligence that leads one to reject leftism and atheism.
I would disagree. The universal acceptance of leftism and atheism would be disastrous for humanity. The ability to ponder reality and arrive at correct conclusions of this nature is absolutely vital, to individuals and to humanity. IMV, a person who is *unable* to do this is unintelligent, no matter what sort of mathematical rainman he might be.
Billy Blythe Xlintstone had a type of intelligence, if such it should be deemed, that allowed him to make people like him. He rode that all the way to the White House (albeit through electoral fraud). When it came to running a country, he was a slobbering moron. He allowed great evils to be perpetrated on his watch, because he was unable to distinguish between good and evil. Which kind of intelligence do you want to see in a leader?
A leftist like RBG appears to be *unable* to view the evidence and solve these problems. That makes her, in my estimation, an idiot. Sure, she can sling around legalese. I’m not impressed. Hell, I can do that. But she is hardly ever able to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the right thing to do. Can’t say never, because even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while, but so seldom as to render the exceptions irrelevant.
At her primary job, which is thinking her way through to a correct conclusion regarding right and wrong, she is utterly inept. Unintelligent.
Likewise, a person who cannot think his way through to a correct conclusion regarding right and wrong cannot be called intelligent. That is the distinguishing intellectual failure of a leftist. Leftists, therefore, cannot be called intelligent, however facile they may be at lesser intellectual disciplines.
RBG better watch her SIX. A state funeral now would be a good distraction.
We need a constitutional amendment stating a SCOTUS 9-0 beatdown results in disbarment and unseating of the judges who allowed this dumpster fire case get to the SCOTUS.
I forget what year I was looking at. Like 2011 the 9th circuit had 19 cases reviewed by SCOTUS, 17 were reversed, They aren’t just liberal, they’re legal idiots. Lots reversed on fundamental jurisdiction issues a 1st year law student knows
“You originally said “person”. Angels, in heaven nor fallen, are persons.”
Still a stretch when the topic was people of the human persuasion.
“No. It is not obvious.”
Well, then, I must apologize for my lack of clarity.
“I am willing to stipulate that there are many who are quite intelligent, but are not wise.”
That’s one way to look at it. However, if their intelligence leads them to get almost everything wrong, is that really intelligence, or just a glib facility with language? True intelligence should lead one to the truth: if not in one’s youth, like Rush Limbaugh, then later, like David Horowitz.
G.K. Chesterton wrote that the purpose of an open mind was to close it, eventually, on the truth. This is something that RBG has failed to do, even at her advanced age, and with every possible advantage and opportunity. I know a number of people who thought their way out of the leftist swamp, but RBG doesn’t seem likely.
Is it really accurate to write that off to a lack of wisdom? That is central to her ability to perform her professional duties. Looks to me like a case of being a glib dumbass.
When one fails to achieve that which is absolutely essential to discharging his professional responsibilities, I think it is an unmistakable sign of insufficient intelligence.
“You are treading close to the the “No true Scotsman fallacy”
I’m not moving the goalposts; just clarifying what I initially meant. I recently read something by somebody famous, in which he deplored the fact that we must now make explicit what men of good will would take for granted.
Did you really think my remarks were meant to extend to spiritual beings such as Lucifer and the Triune God? Or to scientists who got a false reading because of faulty data input?
“I am unwilling to put RBG at the same level of intelligence as AOC, for instance.”
And yet they are wrong about the same things, and in the same way. Many people have created the illusion of intelligence, like the Bent One, with a good memory and the gift of gab. I don’t see any sign that RBG is more likely to reason her way to the truth than is AOC. A snowflake’s chance in Hell in both cases.
“Sin clouds the judgement, and with all of us, that cloud takes whatever level of intelligence we have, and makes it counterproductive.”
Mostly true, but that’s due to the corruption of intelligence. I was speaking of its presence or absence.
“I have also known “intelligent” lefties, who eventually stopped being lefties,”
The ability to think their way out of it almost certainly indicates intelligence.
“Perhaps my response implied more contention than I intended it to. This could be a by-product of exchanged posts rather than natural conversation, where inflection and tone, and clarification on the spot comes in handy.”
Could be, but I must confess: despite my best efforts, I’ve been pissing people off for pushing seventy years now. I had a habit of jumping from A to L to Z, expecting that people would take the rest as given. But noooooo...
This is starting to get unwieldy, but since you brought up Chesterton, I think we can both agree he was extremely intelligent. And yet, it took him decades to come to conclude and act on the conclusion to become Catholic. Robert Bork, another very intelligent man, took near the end of his life, having been an atheist. What if Bork died that 50? Or Chesterton at 30? Or (as you mentioned) David Horowitz at a younger age? They had to have been intelligent as grace builds on nature.
I don’t drop the supernatural, or other categories (like scientists) from my examples, because supernatural persons also have varying levels of intelligence, and intelligence exists outside of human beings and outside of limited realms. Ultimately, all the sciences, physical, philosophical, artistic are parts of a great Truth. Since you had made a universal statement, I thought it deserved the scrutiny of a Kantian approach as to whether it applied universally. If not, why not?
Ultimately, I suspect we are working under differing frameworks of what intelligence means in common use. I also suspect that neither of us are going to retreat from our understandings.
One other possibility is that some of the RBGs, and CERTAINLY some of the David Souters and Anthony Kennedys are intelligent enough to know they are spouting nonsense, and choose to lie. They are intelligent, but evil, and use their intelligence to obscure their evil. The sophists of Ancient Greece were certainly accused of that, but also the reductionist “great men” of the 19th century (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin) may fit that bill as well.
“some of the David Souters and Anthony Kennedys are intelligent enough to know they are spouting nonsense, and choose to lie.”
Granted, but that also means that they are not leftists. A leftist doesn’t know that he is spouting nonsense. He believes.
“Since you had made a universal statement”
My remarks applied to humanity, and I’m not backing down from my opinion that that should have been obvious.
“I thought it deserved the scrutiny of a Kantian approach as to whether it applied universally. If not, why not?”
Because we were discussing humanity, this world. What you did was akin to deliberately placing the worst possible interpretation on my remarks, without justification.
“I suspect we are working under differing frameworks of what intelligence means in common use. I also suspect that neither of us are going to retreat from our understandings.”
I have pondered the nature of intelligence frequently for half a century now, and have read widely. Years ago I took a number of courses at university that dealt in part or entirely with that subject. I could be backed down, but it would take some doing. New arguments, or new evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.