View Single Post
Old 02-03-2016, 12:00 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The one where we get a really, really bad ruling.

I don't buy much into KC's "methodology," but the pattern of outcomes is beginning to suggest quite a bit of politics or ideology. Unless there is another explanation why "gay marriage" cases get resolved in two weeks, while we're still waiting after 7 years to get some circuit court decisions.
IVC, no lawyer, or anyone that's basically a lawyer, is going to agree with anything KC has to say, even if they do. Their training is
1. Supposed to render them superior
2. Trains them in the exact realm that we're arguing, so they're supposed to see more dimensions
3. Makes the idea of just DECIDING an outcome anathema and repugnant to all their training.

So the LAST people who will endorse KC are people with legal training. Even if KC had accurately predicted outcomes since 2000, no legal types would give him credit. Nature of the beast. Admitting that all their training is powerless, or makes them LESS able to see patterns than an outsider is anathema to them.

Indeed, WHY would the rulings be consistently bad? Because before Heller, there was no floor. After Heller, the floor is lower than we thought. That's the dumbed down version that legal types will say.

But they WON'T go one step further and ask WHY the judges we have use the fact that the floor is low to make their ruling as LOW as possible. Why? Because, like I already said.

What lawyer has signed onto the KC pessimism/judges are being political/there is no hope for the courts (for the foreseeable future), we need to pursue other avenues?

Anyone? There's a lot of people that agree with KC, or are starting to, but I'm unaware of any lawyers that agree with him. They'll fight to the bitter end.

Smart people like Fiddletown, and others, don't endorse ANY other options besides courts, and maybe decades+decades of cultural change. Why? Because, the political realm is one they don't understand as well, and represents risks they can't account for, thus it makes them risk averse. Just like lawyers think the civil rights act and civil rights laws are a victory, when a large majority of black folks still live in similar conditions (yeah, they can vote, but school segregation, neighborhood segregation, jobs available, etc.) to where they were 60 years ago. Civil rights legislation sounds great, and theoretically it's VERY strong and allows huge penalties... but the fact is, it still hasn't changed the landscape that much.

Legal resolutions and actual resolutions. Two different things.

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 02-03-2016 at 12:04 AM..