Do you think this is just silly nitpicking or does this represent a pretty large disconnect between the justices and the rest of the country?
By the nature of their job, SCOTUS Justices are pretty disconnected from the rest of the country. They deal with esoteric, incredibly complex issues of law. The average citizen probably can't list 2 of the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, but Justice Thomas could probably give an hours-long lecture on the history of 1st Amendment jurisprudence off the top of his head.
This is a weird issue to be worried about, frankly. The Supreme Court doesn't get involved in factual questions- they are dealing strictly with legal issues.
And in the end, I guess that's all that I found strange. I'm not worried about this anymore than I'm worried about Presidential candidates being unable to list newspapers or say "Google" correctly. In my mind, it was hard to conceptualize giving legal opinions on subjects that you appeared to have only a cursory knowledge of. I get that if there was a case involving human cloning they'd need to ask as many questions as they could imagine. It was just strange to see someone basically say "So these telephones....you can just talk to people through them?".
The thing is, they're not really giving legal opinions on anything to do with the technology, per se. It's not like the issue before them is how does texting work. All of the technical issues have been discussed in the lower court cases, experts have testified in those courts and so on.
The only thing the Justices are going to opine on here, if I understand the case correctly, is whether a governmental employer violated employee privacy rights by reading their text messages. So, they are opining on something they know a lot about, namely privacy laws, rather than technical questions on how certain types of technology work.
There are judges with very high levels of understanding on technological issues. But that's not really a requirement for doing your job as a SCOTUS Justice.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Do you think this is just silly nitpicking or does this represent a pretty large disconnect between the justices and the rest of the country?
By the nature of their job, SCOTUS Justices are pretty disconnected from the rest of the country. They deal with esoteric, incredibly complex issues of law. The average citizen probably can't list 2 of the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, but Justice Thomas could probably give an hours-long lecture on the history of 1st Amendment jurisprudence off the top of his head.
This is a weird issue to be worried about, frankly. The Supreme Court doesn't get involved in factual questions- they are dealing strictly with legal issues.
And in the end, I guess that's all that I found strange. I'm not worried about this anymore than I'm worried about Presidential candidates being unable to list newspapers or say "Google" correctly. In my mind, it was hard to conceptualize giving legal opinions on subjects that you appeared to have only a cursory knowledge of. I get that if there was a case involving human cloning they'd need to ask as many questions as they could imagine. It was just strange to see someone basically say "So these telephones....you can just talk to people through them?".
The thing is, they're not really giving legal opinions on anything to do with the technology, per se. It's not like the issue before them is how does texting work. All of the technical issues have been discussed in the lower court cases, experts have testified in those courts and so on.
The only thing the Justices are going to opine on here, if I understand the case correctly, is whether a governmental employer violated employee privacy rights by reading their text messages. So, they are opining on something they know a lot about, namely privacy laws, rather than technical questions on how certain types of technology work.
There are judges with very high levels of understanding on technological issues. But that's not really a requirement for doing your job as a SCOTUS Justice.
Good points.
Jademonkey79 on
"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
A legitimate question, but one that shows that the person doesn't understand much about the basic technology being used.
Most of the people using that technology don't.
Surprise!
Even a user of the technology wouldn't need to ask the question.
Edit: The question basically asked if you got a busy signal when texting someone currently using their phone.
So a Justice should have to have sent a text message to be able to rule on this?
As has been pointed out, should the same go for dog fights?
And it should all be televised.
Really, though, the Justice should know that he won't get a "your ball is very important to us" message if he tries to interact with more than one dog.
Why does the judge need to know that instead of asking the question and reflecting on the answer and the possible legal implication?
What the fuck is wrong with asking any kind of question as long as you don't go ahead and construct an uninformed opinion? Should she just assume that, as her phone works that way - everybody's does? Do you believe that if you poll the population at large with "Do all phone carries..." ahead of the question, you'd get any certainty in the answer?
The expertise of those people is law and that article is a cheap shot at "olol, senile old justices"!
Edit: Exactly what Evander said above.
I can see that position. I can also see situations where technology is going to move faster than laws and in the end, these people will need to make some type of informed decision on the technology. As others have said, that's why you'd hope that they'd be getting the correct information.
I'm not stating that this article is a lollercaust of old people silliness, I'm just using it as a platform to ask the question whether it's important for Supreme Court justices to have a basic understanding of the technology in question. Your snark is duly noted.
The law is the law, regardless of technology.
Even wiretapping and net neutrality aren't magically disconnected from the rest fo the world. They may be "tech issues" but the real issues that their core are not unique to technology.
The funny thing about the whole Ted Stevens comment is that his analogy wasn't actually all that bad for the point he was making. It's just that the whole "old person trying to explain something new" routine is pretty funny, and series of tubes was a good line.
Anyway, while I generally do think that having officials be this disconnected from the realities of modern life is a bad thing, the supreme court is an exception in that it is making policy at such a high level that it almost doesn't matter. The issues under discussion by the time a case reaches the court transcend the technological processes involved.
A much more ridiculous and irritating example of the court being mired in the 19th century is their decision not to release all the audio of oral arguments (and for that matter, to allow video.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Their souls must remain intact, therefore cameras are not permitted.
Well, really, for good reason. In interviews many Supreme Court Justices have commented that they can jog around DC and no one knows who they are.
Is this a bad thing?
I'd really say no, their relative anonymity is almost required in some cases. They sometimes deal with cases of such sweeping precedent that they could come to bodily harm over their decisions. I mean, a man shot Reagan because he thought Jodi Foster would love him, imagine what some nut job wanted to do when Brown v. Board was announced? Imagine what some nutjob might want to do if gay marriage came to the Supreme Court? Sure, now-a-days you can just google them, but it still may not be a bad idea to have their proceedings done in some form of relative secrecy.
The funny thing about the whole Ted Stevens comment is that his analogy wasn't actually all that bad for the point he was making.
I disagree. The extended metaphor involved him not getting an email for days because the internet was busy.
Entirely possible if the mail server gets backed up. His analogy wasn't perfect and did reflect that he didn't quite fully understand how the Internet works. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to explain it to him as a series of tubes and he just fumbled it when he related it to the public.
Their souls must remain intact, therefore cameras are not permitted.
Well, really, for good reason. In interviews many Supreme Court Justices have commented that they can jog around DC and no one knows who they are.
Is this a bad thing?
I'd really say no, their relative anonymity is almost required in some cases. They sometimes deal with cases of such sweeping precedent that they could come to bodily harm over their decisions. I mean, a man shot Reagan because he thought Jodi Foster would love him, imagine what some nut job wanted to do when Brown v. Board was announced? Imagine what some nutjob might want to do if gay marriage came to the Supreme Court? Sure, now-a-days you can just google them, but it still may not be a bad idea to have their proceedings done in some form of relative secrecy.
Or, you know, their brothers could have their gas lines cut or something.
Spoit on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
SCOTUS justices can be called on to be the final arbiters on literally every issue. But we cannot expect them to be experts on literally every issue. What we expect is that they be experts at law, and that they supplement that expertise with the relevant facts at hand.
I'll be concerned when I hear an argument that they actually misruled precisely because of their lack of technical knowledge.
All judicial nominees should be asked if they think the internet is a series of tubes.
Damn it I wanted to be the first one to make a tubes joke.
Maybe we should tell the justices to "get a brain, morans"?
I got nuthin.
EDIT: Well, except to agree that it is rather naive and ignorant to wax outrage at the fact that some really smart and experienced judicators might need to ask some basic technical questions to decide a case. Shit, would you rather they not ask?
Posts
And include pratfalls by the Bee Guy or El Chavo.
The only thing the Justices are going to opine on here, if I understand the case correctly, is whether a governmental employer violated employee privacy rights by reading their text messages. So, they are opining on something they know a lot about, namely privacy laws, rather than technical questions on how certain types of technology work.
There are judges with very high levels of understanding on technological issues. But that's not really a requirement for doing your job as a SCOTUS Justice.
Rigorous Scholarship
Good points.
The law is the law, regardless of technology.
Even wiretapping and net neutrality aren't magically disconnected from the rest fo the world. They may be "tech issues" but the real issues that their core are not unique to technology.
Anyway, while I generally do think that having officials be this disconnected from the realities of modern life is a bad thing, the supreme court is an exception in that it is making policy at such a high level that it almost doesn't matter. The issues under discussion by the time a case reaches the court transcend the technological processes involved.
A much more ridiculous and irritating example of the court being mired in the 19th century is their decision not to release all the audio of oral arguments (and for that matter, to allow video.)
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Well, really, for good reason. In interviews many Supreme Court Justices have commented that they can jog around DC and no one knows who they are.
Is this a bad thing?
I'd really say no, their relative anonymity is almost required in some cases. They sometimes deal with cases of such sweeping precedent that they could come to bodily harm over their decisions. I mean, a man shot Reagan because he thought Jodi Foster would love him, imagine what some nut job wanted to do when Brown v. Board was announced? Imagine what some nutjob might want to do if gay marriage came to the Supreme Court? Sure, now-a-days you can just google them, but it still may not be a bad idea to have their proceedings done in some form of relative secrecy.
I disagree. The extended metaphor involved him not getting an email for days because the internet was busy.
Entirely possible if the mail server gets backed up. His analogy wasn't perfect and did reflect that he didn't quite fully understand how the Internet works. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to explain it to him as a series of tubes and he just fumbled it when he related it to the public.
Or, you know, their brothers could have their gas lines cut or something.
I'll be concerned when I hear an argument that they actually misruled precisely because of their lack of technical knowledge.
Maybe we should tell the justices to "get a brain, morans"?
I got nuthin.
EDIT: Well, except to agree that it is rather naive and ignorant to wax outrage at the fact that some really smart and experienced judicators might need to ask some basic technical questions to decide a case. Shit, would you rather they not ask?