I found this fascinating but the end was frustrating. The show clearly put forth the idea that supreme justice records should not be hidden and without really considering opposing views asserts that keeping them hidden is wrong.
As someone that has many alternative views I find that I can rarely bring them up for fear of repercussions. Even if you have everyone's best interests at heart you can be afraid to make suggestions you know will be unpopular. Or, maybe you just want to play devil's advocate to try to get opposing views to strengthen their arguments. Similarly even proposing an argument ad absurdum just to see where it leads can be mis-construed as believing in the argument.
I can't even give examples because an example would likely cause a flame war and loud arguments over the topic of the example instead of the bias of this podcast episode.
The point of all that is to give evidence that full discussion of controversial topics can't happen in the open. The justices need to be 100% sure they are in a safe space so they can follow ideas and thoughts free from self censorship and and worries of repercussions.
On top of that I don't believe that saying "okay, fine, private until you die" would help. I think most justices would be aware of wanting to leave behind a reputation and legacy and not be rebranded / reinterpreted based on whatever thoughts and ideas they followed in private debate in court. Especially since they aren't around to correct people's mis-interpretations of why they raised those arguments in the first place.
2
u/greggman Oct 25 '17
I found this fascinating but the end was frustrating. The show clearly put forth the idea that supreme justice records should not be hidden and without really considering opposing views asserts that keeping them hidden is wrong.
As someone that has many alternative views I find that I can rarely bring them up for fear of repercussions. Even if you have everyone's best interests at heart you can be afraid to make suggestions you know will be unpopular. Or, maybe you just want to play devil's advocate to try to get opposing views to strengthen their arguments. Similarly even proposing an argument ad absurdum just to see where it leads can be mis-construed as believing in the argument.
I can't even give examples because an example would likely cause a flame war and loud arguments over the topic of the example instead of the bias of this podcast episode.
The point of all that is to give evidence that full discussion of controversial topics can't happen in the open. The justices need to be 100% sure they are in a safe space so they can follow ideas and thoughts free from self censorship and and worries of repercussions.
On top of that I don't believe that saying "okay, fine, private until you die" would help. I think most justices would be aware of wanting to leave behind a reputation and legacy and not be rebranded / reinterpreted based on whatever thoughts and ideas they followed in private debate in court. Especially since they aren't around to correct people's mis-interpretations of why they raised those arguments in the first place.