Final Thoughts on the Supreme Court for the Year

Image of Scales Of Justice Laser Cut Out Wood Shape Craft Supply - Unfinished

A few days ago the US Supreme Court refused to take an appeal from a 9th Circuit case that took a constitutional stand for homeless people.

The 9th Circuit sad that it is cruel and unusual punishment for the city of Boise, pursuant to authority from the State of Idaho, to criminalize sleeping in outdoor public places such as parks and sidewalks.

SCOTUS refused to take that up. What are we to make of this?

I offer the following thought.

This is yet another piece of evidence that the deliberations of SCOTUS are not what the ideologues always make them out to be. Ideologues of left and right count heads -- five appointed by Presidents of Party left, 4 appointed by members of Party right. Ah, the decisions will naturally be leftward, as ideologues understand it. Or, if the count comes out the other way, so will the results.

Even most ideologues will sometimes admit that there are lots of issues before the court that don't offer themselves neatly as left-versus-right confrontations. So their simply vote counting exercise doesn't apply to those.

But this case may be a bit of evidence that they are wrong even on the sort of case on which they are most likely to fasten. After all, the "cruel and unusual" clause is very much a left/right issue in the cultural politics of the United States. The left generally wants to courts to make bold use of that clause to right wrongs. (Though the death penalty is the usual example of this -- and that isn't at issue in Boise). The right wants the courts to let the states and municipalities do their thing, especially when it involves clearing the streets of bums who are always annoyingly asking for your loose change.

Anyway, after two Trump appointments haven't we come and gone beyond the tipping point long since advertised? Don't we have at least five reliable rightists yet?? If I had to do the counting, despite my aversion to the exercise, I would say -- Roberts, Kanavaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch.

So: why did the court pass up this opportunity to do something that would apparently have pleased the Orange Dynast who put two of those folks there?

Maybe they are actually concerned about something other than their ideological labels?

Just a thought.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog