I Still Need Explanations

Aaron Shurtleff | June 4, 2018
Good day everyone!

I know. I know. I am not as active around here as I used to be/should be. And I don't really have a good (or bad) excuse for it. I'm just all over the place, I guess. I've been more or less not doing as much interactions online. It's a bit too...angry out there for little ol' me. But that's neither here nor there...

I remember once long ago (and perhaps this only happened in my mind) that I started a thread where I asked what I thought to be stupid questions in order to see what I could learn in a relatively friendly atmosphere. Well, now I can't find the thread (which is why I think I might have thought about it but not done it!), so here we go starting up a new one. I really need help with this one. It's big question...

We have nine judges (justices? is that the better term?) on the Supreme Court, right? So, why, in the current ruling which pertains to the Colorado baker and the wedding cake for the same-sex marriage, is the 7-2 decision handed down continuously (in the media stories that I have read at least) called a "narrow decision"? Maybe the numbers "7" and "2" mean different things in a judicial setting than they might in the world I normally inhabit? I would call a 5-4 ruling a narrow ruling. Without a doubt. I might even call a 6-3 ruling narrow (but even then, one side is twice as large as the other, so it seems weird to me to call it narrow, but with the total number being 9, I can maybe see it). I don't get 7-2 being narrow, though. What am I not seeing here? Does a narrow ruling not mean the same as the ruling being by a narrow margin? Is that where I am getting lost?

That's all of my question for the moment. If anyone wants to discuss the ruling, that's cool too, but at least please attempt to answer my dumb question before you have the smart conversation, ok? :)

Samir Mehta | June 4, 2018
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | June 5, 2018
That makes a lot of sense, and I understand now. Thanks so much!

Scott Hardie | June 5, 2018
Yeah, from what I heard, yesterday's ruling only applies in this specific case about this specific baker, because it's about how he was mistreated by the anti-religious Colorado state commission. A similar case brought to the Supreme Court might get a completely different ruling.

As for anger online: I feel exactly the same way. I avoided Facebook for a while because it drove up my blood pressure. Then I started unfollowing everyone who posted anything political at all, and it's much more calm now. It's shallower perhaps -- just photos of people's kids and gardens and meals and such -- but at least it doesn't make me want to flip my desk. Then again, crap like this just makes me want to quit after all.