Sunday , November 17 2024
Home / The Angry Bear / Can the Supreme Court be trusted to call balls and strikes?  Neil Gorsuch, in Over Ruled, gives us one answer.

Can the Supreme Court be trusted to call balls and strikes?  Neil Gorsuch, in Over Ruled, gives us one answer.

Summary:
I will try to say more about this, but for now: You might have missed it, but in August, Gorsuch published a book titled Over Ruled, which argues that there are too many laws on the books and that government officials at both the federal and state levels are enforcing them in increasingly unpredictable and unjust ways. The argument is not exactly original, but it takes on a different force when it comes from a sitting Supreme Court justice. Gorsuch went on a monthslong publicity tour to promote the book in front of largely conservative and Republican audiences. The book, however, is riddled with glaring factual omissions and analytic errors that seriously call into question its reliability and rigor. In its essence, the book is standard

Topics:
Eric Kramer considers the following as important: , ,

This could be interesting, too:

Bill Haskell writes Healthcare Insurance in the United States

Joel Eissenberg writes Seafood says global warming is not a hoax

Bill Haskell writes The Opioid Epidemic from 1980 Onward in My Words

Angry Bear writes Questionable Use of Health Risk Assessments Drives Costs

I will try to say more about this, but for now:

The book, however, is riddled with glaring factual omissions and analytic errors that seriously call into question its reliability and rigor. In its essence, the book is standard conservative political propaganda — an anecdote-driven, broad-brush attack on legislators trying to solve contemporary social problems and on the executive branch officials trying to enforce the country’s laws. It represents a remarkable attack by a sitting Supreme Court justice on the other two branches of government.

My perspective differs. “Over Ruled” overstates the problem with government oversight, whether regulatory or criminal, and undervalues its importance and benefits. But different strokes. My beef in this column is not with Gorsuch’s more libertarian worldview. It’s with the license he takes in making his case about the “human toll.” His book is dedicated to “the men and women whose experiences are recounted in these pages,” yet Gorsuch’s recitation omits inconvenient facts that undercut his argument.

Your conservative Supreme Court Justices calling balls and strikes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *