Comments on: Where Justice Kennedy finds his facts: Who cares? He doesn’t check them

By: Diana

Diana — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:42:48 +0000

Another review of this Ellman case study makes claims that the Solicitor General who supplied the pop culture legal opinion from Psychology Today to Justice Kennedy did not verify it. Kennedy did not verify it. The court has how many Justices–who did not verify it.
Is this what they teach in law school? Take any old smattering of lies, dress them in supreme Court jargon, and set up Justice Department Programs that cost billions in taxpayer dollars and wreck hundreds of thousands of lives? To make Justices, judges, and lawyers rich and famous?
Can’t we do anything about that/ It’s our country, after all.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:42:33 +0000

Is it possible to challenge these sitings over where they base their “facts”? If the High Court, is going to make a lasting decision based on “facts”, then it stands to reason, the those who would suffer from the decision of these justices should be able to challenge the facts to make sure that they are indeed facts. It’s much like an accused person having the right to face their accuser.

By: NH Registrant

NH Registrant — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:47:32 +0000

I am reading a very enlightening book right now called “The Child Abuse Industry” by Mary Pride. It shows how child protective agencies and politicians ignore facts and fudge numbers to meet their personal and financial agendas.

So, facts really mean nothing these days. I quote the great Chris Hedges : “People are not moved by logic and reason. They are moved by a careful manipulation of emotion.”

By: charles pettus

charles pettus — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:57:09 +0000

I would give 3:1 odds that if Justice Kennedy had the guts to publically say so, he would tell you that it wouldn’t have a made a difference even if he had the correct facts he was going to make the same ruling anyway. The fact that he had those bogus facts and cited them probably just gave him a little political cover. This is what leads me to think that, as I have been saying for the last 2-3 years, that there is another more onminous reason courts and legislatures are upholding SO laws. And the “Protecting the Public from Predators” banner proponents waive to justify them is a smoke screen. If this were the case them why not have the same type of laws,i.e., registry/registration, for murderers, robbers, car thiefs, home invaders, drug dealers, burgalers, con men: are these not predators too? And I’ll give 4:1 odds that proponents of SO laws can’t answer this question, if so I’d damn sure like to hear it.