Couple of Swipes at the Court

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Comments

[catlin.livejournal.com]

I read the second as a swipe against unjust laws, myself, not at the court.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Do you mean that you think judges should base their decisions on polls?

I think it is taking a shot at the justices for using only polls rather than precedent and the Constitution. Personally, I do think polls probably should be a factor, but to say that that is all that the justices are using sounds like a shot to me.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Sure looks like a shot at the SCOTUS to me.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It could only be a shot at the court for "using only polls" if that had happened in any recent decision. Since that hasn't happened, it strongly implies that the cartoonist is disengenuously claiming that "equal protection under the law" is a poll-based thing, which of course it isn't and anyone claiming it is is an idiot.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

It could only be a shot at the court for "using only polls" if that had happened in any recent decision.

Or if the cartoonist believed that is what happened.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That would require the cartoonist to be both stupid *and* to have not read the opinion that they're making a cartoon about.

It would be extremely rude to suggest that the cartoonist was so ignorant.

So, since it would be unbearably rude to suggest that the cartoonist was UNINFORMED enough to make that (transparently false) claim, and the claim IS transparently false, we're left with the only option being the less-rude "the cartoonist deliberately and knowingly lied" as the only polite possibility.

(If you have a link to the cartoonist admitting that they were stupid, not lying, I'll look at it. But I maintain that, in the absence of such a link, it's rude to suggest that they're that stupid.)