When an opinion needs some facts to back it up

[Aunt Spiker]

My Government History teacher is very opinionated, which is usually no big deal and many of his views are explained or supported somehow, however, today it became a big deal for me and I called him out on the bolded-portion of this quote: (something I hope not to regret, later).

(This class I'm taking is online - no 'in class' debates, so my 'call out' was a post in our classroom discussion forum - he has yet to respond).

Judge Reinhardt [judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals] has written or participated in parobably two of the absolute worst decisions ever handed down - the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance case a few years ago (Newdow V U.S. Congress a/k/a Newdow V Elk Grove Unified School Disctrict) and the shocking case handed down in 2005 declaring that parents have absolutely no say in hthe raising of their children (Fields V Palmdale School District).
He is very much an activist judge.

The 9th Circuit is notorious for handing down the most absurd rulings ,and it is the most overturned circuit when it come sot appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court - the S.C. overturns many of hte decisions of the 9th circuit becaues they are so outrageous. . . .

Judge Reinhardt's wife is actively involved in the ACLU in California and formed NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), a liberal pro-abortion group. So, that should show the common person that he probably is an activist [judge].

My questioning to him:

I fail to see how his opinions on abortion, and actions concerning abortion, reflect his activist-judiciary stance.
The way you've written this, in fact, it seems as if NARAL is his wife's undertaking, not his own - or is it? (please elaborate).
If it really is *just* his wife's undertaking then NARAL reflects *her* values - not necessarily his own, and so perhaps drawing one thought - based on her actions - is a bit of a stretch?

By your statement you also seem to be suggesting that anyone who forms or participates in organizations like NARAL *are* supportive of activist judges and the like. . . which is not a fair or accurate presumption.
. . .

This is what happens when a debate-lover like me takes a Government History class :lol I'm demanding my teacher own up to his assumptions - I feel it's only right.

 

[Fiddytree]

Rants are so much better in person. Typing them out just becomes too premeditated and counterproductive.

Second of all, 2005---->history? Really? A lot of my research is recent, but I try to separate what happened post-1995 from prior to that moment-which is awfully recent to begin with.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Regardless of your points - my issue is still quite legitimate.

My teacher is painting someone to be something based on the actions of his wife - old or new, ancient history or modern history - it's wrong. Especially wrong for a professor to be doing it in a class.

 

[DarkWizard12]

My Government History teacher is very opinionated, which is usually no big deal and many of his views are explained or supported somehow, however, today it became a big deal for me and I called him out on the bolded-portion of this quote: (something I hope not to regret, later).

(This class I'm taking is online - no 'in class' debates, so my 'call out' was a post in our classroom discussion forum - he has yet to respond).



My questioning to him:


This is what happens when a debate-lover like me takes a Government History class :lol I'm demanding my teacher own up to his assumptions - I feel it's only right.

Is your issue about the judge's wife? Or about abortion? I have a hunch about which one it is.

Regardless, the teacher never claimed that the judge is an activist judge, he said that reinhardt is probably an activist judge based on his best judgement(or opinion) of the judge's decisions and whom he associates himself with. He doesn't need a fact because he never stated fact(other than that his wife works for NARAL, which is easy to prove, and the judge's issue rulings, which is also easy to prove). Poorly worded yes, but not inaccurate.

Unless he is adding questions like "is Reinhardt an activist judge?", then you don't really have anything to worry about. Just another opinionated teacher. They're everywhere, live with it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

My issue is that he's not *just* lookingat the judge's actions and decisions within his 9th Circuit judgements. He's looking at his marriage-related this and thats.

He is very much an activist judge.

That's the teacher's statement - obviously he believes that Reinhardt is an activist judge and according to his statements regarding Reinhardt's wife and NARAL - he considers him an activist judged based on these non-judiciary things (NARAL, etc).

I believe Reinhardt is an activist judge, too - I agree with the teacher's view *based* on his judgements - NOT based on what his wife did or other organizations he's involved in. :shrug: I think it's a false and unfair presumption - to look at non-judiciary factors when deciding if a judge is biased, activist, unfair, etc etc.

That's like judging the quality of my cooking by tasting my husband's meatloaf - and drawing an assumption about my abilities from that.

 

[DarkWizard12]

That's the teacher's statement - obviously he believes that Reinhardt is an activist judge and according to his statements regarding Reinhardt's wife and NARAL - he considers him an activist judged based on these non-judiciary things (NARAL, etc).

I believe Reinhardt is an activist judge, too - I agree with the teacher's view *based* on his judgements - NOT based on what his wife did or other organizations he's involved in. :shrug: I think it's a false and unfair presumption - to look at non-judiciary factors when deciding if a judge is biased, activist, unfair, etc etc.

That's like judging the quality of my cooking by tasting my husband's meatloaf - and drawing an assumption about my abilities from that.

Again, I do agree, it was poorly worded. But this is a judicial position. Since Reinhardt has a lot of experiance, we can draw more conclusions from that, but what if he didn't have that judicial experiance? What if he was "new to the bench"? Then you have no choice but to look at non-judiciary items.

What it seems to me is that your teacher was trying to say: "this could have been seen coming", Reinhardt's activism could have been predicted long before he took the court

For the record, I do not believe that marriage alone is reliable for indicating political views, but your teacher was probably just giving an example of how it accumulates.

Which is why I say it was poorly worded.

 

[niftydrifty]

There's lots wrong with our culture. People will get their panties in a bunch over "tone" rather than content. They'll also spend more time focusing on reactions to things than what prompted the reaction in the first place.

Challenging people here in a forum like this is fun because it's anonymous and there are few "real-life" relationships here. Doing it in school or work requires tact and is almost always better in person, rather than a brief email or post.

Unless dude is an uncommonly 'judicious' straight-shooter (and I doubt it), I'd bet a boatload he has just been bugged enormously by what you did and that he'll let it cloud further interactions with you. It sucks but it happens.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Again, I do agree, it was poorly worded. But this is a judicial position. Since Reinhardt has a lot of experiance, we can draw more conclusions from that, but what if he didn't have that judicial experiance? What if he was "new to the bench"? Then you have no choice but to look at non-judiciary items.

What it seems to me is that your teacher was trying to say: "this could have been seen coming", Reinhardt's activism could have been predicted long before he took the court

For the record, I do not believe that marriage alone is reliable for indicating political views, but your teacher was probably just giving an example of how it accumulates.

Which is why I say it was poorly worded.

Well - I don't know what he meant, actually - which is why I asked him for clarification on the entire issue. The only thing that he leads to is statements about why the system is a bit broken - that judges who pass rulings which are continuously overturned should be excused from the bench in some way, or that there should be more accessible recourse for the people in this area.
(Which I agree with).

Yeah - maybe it's just poorly worded, but since he's the teacher he has to own up to it somehow and explain himself.