re: #628 Aceofwhat?

I didn’t say his civil rights work was bad. I said “positive”. I think that means “good”.

Where did i say i had a problem with his Civil Rights work???

Oh, I just misintepreted your sentence:

It is precisely his record and his body of work that makes me believe the results were, luckily, positive despite a philosophy i would never endorse in a current or future judicial candidate.

Apologies for that. I thought you meant it was precisely his record before the supreme court that made you believe the results on the supreme court were lucky. Sorry for getting you so deeply wrong; it was a significant error in how I read you. I completely acknowledge that you’re endorsing and celebrating his record as a Civil Rights lawyer.

But again: I think that you’re putting far too much weight on a single sentence that the man uttered. I think his judicial philosophy can best be seen in his actual work, not a single sentence he said in a rejoinder to a question. I’m unsure why people are focusing so much on that, as though it’s a shibboleth when it clearly is not.

During the Civil Rights period, we had all sorts of terrible laws that needed to be overturned, and were overturned by the Supreme Court. To me, that seems a very good example of the Justices on the court doing what they thought— thought in regards to the Constitution, to human decency, and to the spirit of freedom— was right and letting the law catch up. I’m not sure why that phrase to you serves as such a dire warning of dark things.

And again again again: Why did you change his word ‘think’ to the word ‘feel’? By doing so you drastically change the meaning of the sentence, which you are already over-interpreting.