NYT: She Was A Black Election Official in Georgia. Then Came New GOP Rules.

[jaxexpat]

34. It gets to the question, "which set of facts do you support".

The issue is how could anybody accept that there are more than one set of facts? Yet even our best efforts toward judgeships have rewarded us with federal courts wherein there is a 180 degree difference of facts. It's why we have an odd number of USSC judges. So that one set of facts weighs can more than another.

They're called opinions but they're so much more because the law which comes clear from them very tangibly effects very real events in the lives of people. Facts are inexorable, they are the bedrock of existence, of reality, whether we like it or not. They're "pesky" that way.

In the world of facts, someone's "opinion" is meaningless. Further, if their "opinion" contradicts the facts it's plainly proof that they're delusional, insane. If this is all the case then the concept of "middle of the road" judges describes those learned legal types who are the most anchored to reality. They're drawn from that set of people who are the "least" insane.

Could Antonin Scalia have passed a psychological screening? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito? Kavanaugh or Barrett? Or are they not simply highly functional, yet dangerously flawed, characters, masquerading as worthies?