i think i’m suggesting a somewhat stronger claim. for this Supreme Court, many of its decisions individually can be attributed to benign or at least defensible reasoning that fails to adequately address “unintended” consequences. so in that sense, ignorance and malice are hard to distinguish. 1/

but i’m claiming though Hanlon’s Razor suggests we stick with ignorance or incompetence, with this Court the parsimonious explanation must be malice, that the adverse (from most of our perspectives) unintended consequences are in fact intended. 2/

the Court has a longstanding (Citizen’s United, voting rights) pattern of provoking such consequences through means many contemporaries perceive. 3/

which form of facially benign or defensible reasoning they apply they vary willy nilly but not randomly. they choose one that predictably will cause what most of us would take to be adverse consequences, while unpersuasively and ultimately mistakenly pretending they’ve addressed the concern. 4/

individually, each decision might be attributed to good faith mistakes, reasonable disagreements, a kind of legalistic blindness that puts certain procedural principles before outcomes, but in a neutral way. 5/

in aggregate, however, all of that is untenable. their behavior is not indistinguishable form ignorance. it is driven by malice outright, or a set of ideological views that most of the public would characterize as malicious if plainly and candidly stated drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/11/19/p... /fin