The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: March 15, 1933
3/15/1933: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's birthday.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The KKK was founded and led by lawyers and judges. Their extra-judicial first degree murder with racial malice in front of 100’s of witnesses were immunized by lawyers and judges. They lynched 4000 black men over 100 years. The KKK was the terror arm of the Democrat Party, still the party of the lawyer and of tyrannical, worthless government.
This Democrat Justice killed 100 times more black babies each year, beyond the dreams of the most extreme, genocidal, racist, Democrat, lawyer maniac.
And yet, strangely enough, it is the GOP that is so interested in preserving monuments to KKK founders.
You’re Bonkers, Behar.
It is worth taking time to consider Justice Ginsberg’s life. Here is a person who started law school when most of here classmates were men. A woman who really did it all, studied law, cared for a sick husband, raised a family. A woman who took on discrimination and showed that the laws oppressing women, really oppressed all people. A woman who when many of her peers were retired became a “rock star”. Many justices will be remembered for there opinions, Ruth Badger Ginsberg will be remembered for her life.
+1
Just a mass murderer on the side.
Daivd, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be remembered for her life. With a little bit of luck, you will be grandly forgotten.
That’s the fake Democrat propaganda. The fact will prevail. Cultural Commie, mass mudering, highly offensive, lying weasel.
David, of course, doesn’t care about life. He recently wrote that those who kill criminals (whatever their crime) should get a bounty. He just hates women and wants them ‘barefoot and pregnant.’ Such is the Trumpista.
Feminism, of course,, is a fake lawyer madking ideology. It is a pretext for lawyers to plunder the assets of productive people. That includes productive females and married homosexuals, the few too stupid to avoid that lawyer trap.
All female liberation came from male invented technology. Zero came from this Ivy indoctrinated, lying, tyrannical, cultural Commie, offensive weasel.
You’re a nut.
Fallacy of Irrelevance. In a tribunal, would be moving for a mistrial and all legal costs to your personal assets.
This forum really makes you think about the practical issues of free speech absolutism in private practice.
The 100% hands off approach really begun to gather so many nuts letting their freak flag fly that the signal to noise is basically becoming nonviable.
Whom did you vote for President in 2020?
The real answer is to be sure to confront lies, not to censor. When someone but up BS challenge it. Don’t give them a freebie.
Calling out ad hominem nutcase comments only encourages them.
Someone getting upset by that Weinstein fucko’s rape comment is celebrated as win for him, and the person calling it out gets mocked, so it’s not even debatable that ‘calling out BS’ is effective, or even the point.
Also stop violating the Fallacy of Irrelevance with personal insults from the fourth grade.
Eugene banned me from his blog, from his blog at the Post. Jeff@amazon.com restored my privilege. Reason mag and the Koch bro is allowing me here. The lawyer expert in the Free Speech Clause is not.
You don’t seem to mind it when you’re busy lying about other people’s posts/arguments.
Ah, the logical fallacy of tu quoque.
Ah, the logical fallacy of tu quoque.
As usual, your ignorance causes you to look the fool. Pointing out hypocrisy is not a tu quoque fallacy…nor any other sort of fallacy, for that matter.
I notice you still haven’t acknowledged your having been proven wrong here with regard to a Harvard professor praising the Soviet system:
Thoughtcrime at Georgetown? “It Is … Wrong for Faculty to Be Thinking—Not Just Speaking—…”
Meh, you only pounce on liberal commenters alleged ‘lies’ or ‘hypocrisy’ or ‘fallacies’ because they’re relatively rare – if you concerned yourself with the right wing commenters it’d be a full time job.
Meh, you only pounce on liberal commenters alleged ‘lies’ or ‘hypocrisy’ or ‘fallacies’ because they’re relatively rare
That’s pretty good. Will you be performing at The Improv anytime soon?
It’s funny ‘cos it’s true.
Pointing out hypocrisy *is* the logical fallacy of tu quoque; feel free to google it if you’re not familiar with the term. The rationale is that even if someone is a hypocrite, it doesn’t mean his argument is wrong. Otherwise, no parent would ever be able to correct a child for doing something the parent himself did when he was a child.
And as usual you’ve combined ignorance with terrible reading skills. I did not say that no professor praised the Soviet system. I said that I would be surprised if a professor had said that the Soviets were out producing us, which is not the same thing.
Your community college probably offers a course on basic logic. You should consider taking it.
The rationale is that even if someone is a hypocrite, it doesn’t mean his argument is wrong.
I didn’t say his argument was wrong. I said he was a hypocrite for complaining about something he takes advantage of himself.
And as usual you’ve combined ignorance with terrible reading skills.
Speaking of hypocrisy.
Pointing out hypocrisy *is* the logical fallacy of tu quoque
No, it isn’t. It is only a logical fallacy if it is being used to discredit an argument. At no point did I attempt to discredit the argument.
You really, really suck at this.
Wuz, not only are you still digging, you’re about to come out at the other end.
Sarc’s initial comment was that the signal to noise ratio is becoming non-viable, to which you responded that he didn’t seem to mind when he was lying about other people’s comments. Now, signal to noise and lying are two separate issues, so your comment wasn’t even germane to what he said. But if we generously give you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to include lying under the general category of signal to noise, your comment still comes down to the question of whether signal to noise is viable. So it was directed to his argument, even though you’re apparently not sufficiently intelligent to have thought that through and figured it out.
I will further give you the benefit of the doubt that when you were young once, you may have had a mind that functioned far better than yours currently does. However, at the moment, if you’re going to insult other people, you should at least be sure that you know what you’re talking about.
Now, signal to noise and lying are two separate issues, so your comment wasn’t even germane to what he said.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that, or are you just dishonest enough to say it anyway? This sets up a potentially interesting paradox. If you’re so fundamentally dishonest that you’ve come to consider lying as belonging to the category of “signal” rather than “noise”, I suppose you could honestly believe what you typed, as mind-numbingly stupid as it is.
No, I don’t consider lying as signal to noise, but the only way to make any sense whatsoever of your otherwise insensible comment is to assume that you did, probably by not reading carefully, which continues to be a problem for you.
Going back to work now. It will take the light from your signal multiple millenia to reach your noise.
No, I don’t consider lying as signal to noise
I’m not sure how to parse that gibberish.
the only way to make any sense whatsoever of your otherwise insensible comment is to assume that you did
You appear to either have the IQ of a potato, or want people to believe that you do.
Wuz, talk to your doctor about what appears to be early dementia. He may be able to help you.
your comment still comes down to the question of whether signal to noise is viable
No, it comes down to a criticism of his complaining about something that he routinely takes advantage of to get away with constantly lying.
I really don’t know how to make it any easier to understand. I’m afraid you’re on your own.
Ah, I see your problem. You’re assuming that something can’t simultaneously be pointing out hypocrisy and also tu quoque.
Like I said earlier, your community college probably offers introductory logical courses. You should consider taking one. I’ll bet several commenters here would pitch in for the cost of tuition if it would make you stop posting illogical nonsense.
I said that I would be surprised if a professor had said that the Soviets were out producing us
No, you said…
“I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought the Russians were outperforming us”
You still haven’t acknowledged your challenge having been answered.
And now, if you go back and read the statements that were made in response to my challenge — reading them carefully this time — you’ll see that they didn’t address the specific point I actually made. You’re trying to have me having set forth a different specific challenge than I actually did.
Again, you may once have had a mind that worked like a steel trap, but at this point it’s just not getting what’s actually being said. Have you spoken to your doctor about this?
That said, there are multiple new threads here every day, and at some point I stop reading the old ones.
you’ll see that they didn’t address the specific point I actually made.
LOL! They addressed EXACTLY the point you (attempted) to make (but failed miserably at). It’s settled, you’re just another thoroughly dishonest hack.
at some point I stop reading the old ones
That point being immediately after you realize how wrong you are.
Settled in your mind, perhaps, where the magical unicorns dwell.
I rephrase people’s arguments right after the post it.
It’s pretty easy to see what they posted; so maybe consider what I do isn’t lying, it’s putting people to the question of what they mean.
This weasel also supported Justice Scalia in his jihad against Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. They dropped crime 40%, including the murder of black people. They also dropped lawyer jobs, so they had to go. These weasels lawlessly took down state guidelines.
They went, and the murder of black people surged again.
I have to say how disappointing it is that in a thread about a legal giant who changed the legal landscape, and had so many remarkable achievements, mostly for the better, of 18 comments more than half are vile personal attacks, nutty conspiracy claims, or both.
Eugene, it’s your blog and you have the right to decide the commenting rules. Please understand, though, how tiresome it is for those of us trying to have intelligent conversation to wade through, well, crap.
No rebuttal in fact, law or logic. Just violations of the Fallacy of Irrelevance. Is anything I said not true about Ginsberg, or is historical cover up and revision all you care about?
This blog belongs to Reason and to the Koch bro. If it belonged to the national expert on the Free Speech Clause, my speech would be suppressed.
David Behar is a a Trumpista, and Trumpistas are in control of one of our two major parties. Behar is the GOP.
Queenie. Look at your income tax return for 2019. You did very well because of Trump. All Democrats constituents did. Now they will suffer untold agonies under Biden. Their gas now costs $1 more. Thousands have lost their jobs. Murders and overdoses among Democrats have surged 30%.
personal attacks
Physician, heal thyself.
Wuz. Personal attack is in the Commie handbook.
I support cancel culture. Purge all cultural Commies from a school or purge the school.