If the Justices “fail to recognize where their assumptions about society and technology break from the norm—or indeed, where they are making assumptions in the first place—we’re all in trouble.” Indeed.
At Crooks and Liars, Parker Higgins focuses on comments made by Chief Justice John Roberts during the oral argument in the cellphone privacy cases, in which the Chief Justice expressed skepticism that many law-abiding people carry more than one cellphone. Higgins suggests that if the Justices “fail to recognize where their assumptions about society and technology break from the norm—or indeed, where they are making assumptions in the first place—we’re all in trouble.”
— Monday Roundup, Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, today
Via me; H/T this post by run75441 a.k.a. Bill H.
An important find, Bill. And now maybe some people who actually matter will read Higgins’ post.
That’s quite a “money” quote. It transcends the issue in the two cellphone-privacy cases, and technology cases in general, and cuts to the heart of what’s wrong with the current Supreme Court. As things stand now, all of us who know that it’s no longer the 1980s or even the ’90s are in trouble.
NOTE: The Court’s argument schedule is completed for this term, and the Court is not scheduled to “sit” again until May 19, so unless it announces an opinion-release session that is not currently scheduled–which probably won’t happen, because these folks probably have full speaking/interview schedules until then–we get a two-week break from this stuff.
Thank heavens. I mean, praise the Lord.
Read my post again. Parker is not at C&L. He has his own Blog. C&L just cited him and I cited both.
I know, and so does Amy Howe. His post is there, though, as well as on his own blog. I sent her both links and she chose the Crooks and Liars one, where he’s, in effect, guest posting. His full post is cross-posted there.
In a comments on Run’s post on this topic JackD suggested that Justice Roberts might be “out to lunch” for not being aware of (in the ivory tower unawareness) social norms. On the other hand Higgins attributes Robert’s assumptions to a failure to recognize societal norms. “Higgins suggests that if the Justices “fail to recognize where their assumptions about society and technology break from the norm—or indeed, where they are making assumptions in the first place—we’re all in trouble.” –
We may be in trouble in regards to Roberts et al assumptions and ideologies, but it has nothing to do with their not recognizing societal norms or being out to lunch, as I suggested yesterday. never being one to feel that something worth saying need not be said twice, I repeat,
JackD, I think you give them too much credit. Being out to lunch on some aspect of the subject implies that it is ignorance that leads to the final decision, a decision that is likely to be flawed. These people, and Roberts is only one of a group, are not ignorant fools. Not for the most part at least. On the other hand, Roberts’ assumptions may not agree to the norms of the society that most of us spend our days involved with, but he has made his point of view pretty clear regarding how he comes to legal decisions. I think it far more likely that the decision of the case has already been formed in mind and now those minds are building the basis upon which their flawed ideas are supported. The reactionary findings of this activist court are too consistent to be the result of being out to lunch.
Jack, I think you are probably right, but I wouldn’t entirely rule out the “out to lunch” hypothesis… at least in the sense that “the rich are not like you and me.”
Human beings apparently do NOT necessarily share the same reality, and folks who have spent their entire lives in “high circles” or academia do NOT know how the rest of us live. And they form their “ethics” on the basis of what is convenient for people of their class to believe.
What Coberly said. Remember when George H.W. Bush had no idea of the price for bread or milk (I forget which) and surprised by the cashier’s device that scanned the codes?
But G.B. I could probably tell you the price of a Bentley Arnage, or some such trifle. Maybe not. At a certain level of wealth, especially so little had to be done in a life time to earn that wealth, the objects that are acquired have no actual value other than that they are known to be only for the wealthy. They’re identifiers that enable inherited wealth to recognize that they are different from the rest.
The members of the court are of a different character. They are the strivers. They are the bourgeoisie who understand that their personal success and wealth are tied to their betters. They enable the elite members, the .001%, to maintain their positions. The court has an agenda to address and sadly at the moment, and for the past decade or two it has been to roll back the clock on the masses. This has nothing to do with rose tinted glasses. This has only to do with the class of enablers to serve the needs of the elites and find all manner of clever excuses for their ideas and their decisions. To think other wise is to fall into the trap of believing that they only need be educated to reality as it should be. Their reality is as it is.
I don’t disagree about the court majority’s motivation and when I say they are out to lunch I mean that their constructed arguments justifying their political decisions sometimes betray their disconnectedness from the rest of us.
I never meant to imply they could be educated out of their ignorance.
Another sad fact of human cognition is that once a person has an idea set that “works”… gives him the answers he needs in his own environment (society) he cannot learn anything new.