Pleasantly surprising unanimous vote at SCOTUS
-
A white woman attempted to sue for discrimination based on the fact that she wasn't gay, and it was thrown out of court based on the fact that the people who didn't promote her, were not gay themselves. SCOTUS decided that her case should rest on its merits, without regard to the identities of the people practicing the alleged discrimination. I.e. majority groups should not have a higher standard of proof in discrimination cases, than minority groups.
Imagine predicting that Sotomayor would vote that way. Brown-Jackson wrote the majority opinion. Nice to see.
And imagine how deluded those lower court judges must have been.
Link to video -
ChatGPT asked me to post this:
The differences of opinion among Supreme Court justices, despite having access to the same facts and legal texts, reveal several fundamental human characteristics:
1. Interpretive Philosophy (Judicial Ideology)
Even with the same Constitution and laws, justices apply different frameworks for interpretation:
- Originalism: What did the text mean at the time it was written?
- Living Constitutionalism: How should the text apply in modern society?
This is not just intellectual preference—it reflects how people perceive truth, authority, and change.
️ Human trait revealed: Epistemological orientation—how one believes truth is known or discovered.
2. Moral Intuition and Value Hierarchies
Each justice weighs competing values differently—liberty vs. order, individual rights vs. societal interest. Their legal reasoning is often built on moral intuitions they may not be fully conscious of.
️ Human trait revealed: Moral psychology—how people prioritize fairness, harm, loyalty, authority, etc.
3. Personal and Cultural Background
Their upbringing, education, religion, region, and life experiences influence how they see the world. Even with full effort at impartiality, personal lenses shape interpretation.
️ Human trait revealed: Cognitive bias and identity-based perception.
4. Group Identity and Institutional Dynamics
Justices may be influenced by their political affiliations, by relationships with other justices, or by the court’s institutional legacy. Over time, their opinions can evolve due to social influence or concern for legitimacy.
️ Human trait revealed: Tribalism, status sensitivity, and adaptability.
5. Role Conception
Some justices see themselves as guardians of the law, others as correctors of injustice. How a justice conceives of their role on the bench greatly influences their rulings.
️ Human trait revealed: Self-concept and purpose-driven reasoning.
So while the justices are all looking at the same statutes, precedents, and arguments, their divergent conclusions are an expression of:
- how humans process complex moral and legal questions,
- how deeply worldview affects reasoning,
- and how objectivity is always partly filtered through subjectivity.
Would you like a specific case example where these dynamics are especially clear?
-
It was nice of ChatGPT to suggest you post that.
-
You should see the stuff that ChatGPT wants me to post. Let's just say it's a good thing I'm not a slave to technology like H.
-
You should see the stuff that ChatGPT wants me to post. Let's just say it's a good thing I'm not a slave to technology like H.
