Subjectivity Knows No Intelligence Boundary
I have yet to ever hear this idea discussed, so bow before me for starting it. (If you can google someone that came up with this same argument, then they must've obviously copied off me). Now, each Supreme Court Justice has an outstanding career, a career of which us mortals can only dream. Presidents hold no less stellar histories. They have each graduated first in their class from Harvard, Princeton, Yale or occasionally Standford (I'm sure that must be a source of much ridicule behind the bench). They are smarter than damn near anyone on here...
...and yet, they're equally partisan. Just look at their references, just look at their rulings. Holy SHIT, Scalia can't admit THAT about the right to privacy in regard to a court-ordered search? Kennedy doesn't know jack about the powers of the police! These are some of the smartest, most studied students of law in the U.S., and yet they often viciously compete on certain basic issues. Does this mean that the entire branch is inadequate to defend their job? Does partisanship extend beyond every single boundary one can think of? Does education, or intelligence, matter in terms of where your values lie? Should we rethink the Court?
“It is a strange paradox that today’s central banks are generally staffed by economists, who by and large profess a belief in a theory which says that their jobs are, at the best, unnecessary, and more likely wealth-destroying. Needless to say, this is not a point widely discussed among respectable economists. Nevertheless, it is an issue worth pondering.”
George Cooper, The Origin of Economic Crises