Do you think Brown v. Board is one of the cases SCOTUS got wrong? Genuinely curious.
I'm not yummyfajitas nor am I speaking for him.
I believe he's looking for a principle somewhere that links people's moral outrage and the law. People either have their principles or they have the law. If people are having an argument about what is moral the law is irrelevant, if they're having an argument about what is moral the law is irrelevant.
A consistent argument would be either legal or moral. Any argument that treats the law as having moral weight is assigning some kind of quasi-sacred status to it.
Either the PATRIOT Act is legal therefore it is right is an argument that has some weight however tiny XOR it doesn't.
Why do you think
But it's not just "the Supreme Court decided it and thus it is so" (although when push comes to shove...). It's also that the SCOTUS decisions are a hint book to arguments like this.
They're just some political appointees who're mostly very, very smart. The important bit is the political appointees though. If you just assume Republican appointees vote Republican and Democrats Democrat on any given policy position you don't go far wrong. What moral weight can that have?
I'm not making an inverted ad hominem argument, suggesting that they're right simply because they're the Supreme Court. I'm saying, the argument in Brown v. Board was persuasive.
But law is one of those areas where ad hominem is literally true. If the Supreme Court says something is the law then it is, unless there's a constitutional amendment overturning it.
I'm not yummyfajitas nor am I speaking for him.
I believe he's looking for a principle somewhere that links people's moral outrage and the law. People either have their principles or they have the law. If people are having an argument about what is moral the law is irrelevant, if they're having an argument about what is moral the law is irrelevant.
A consistent argument would be either legal or moral. Any argument that treats the law as having moral weight is assigning some kind of quasi-sacred status to it.
Either the PATRIOT Act is legal therefore it is right is an argument that has some weight however tiny XOR it doesn't.
Why do you think
But it's not just "the Supreme Court decided it and thus it is so" (although when push comes to shove...). It's also that the SCOTUS decisions are a hint book to arguments like this.
They're just some political appointees who're mostly very, very smart. The important bit is the political appointees though. If you just assume Republican appointees vote Republican and Democrats Democrat on any given policy position you don't go far wrong. What moral weight can that have?