Both indicate that the court is not partisan, that decision are made because of their interpretation of the Constitution and the Law.
Given that we can tell most of the time how the court will rule by the topic. I find this hard to believe.
Though it is nice that sometimes 1 or 2 of the Justices still surprise us at times. Thoughts?
9 comments:
The Supreme Court is partisan. Justice Barrett, a Trump nominee, simply doesn't know what she is talking about.
--Hiram
So does that mean that the "Liberal" Justices are also "political hacks"?
Sure. The Supreme Court has been discredited.
The idea of the Supreme Court as a liberal institution is a leftover, I hang over really of the Warren Court years when liberals on the court ruled that due process required that a person person charged with a crime should have an attorney, that the right against self incrimination doesn't mean much if cops could beat a confession our of a suspect in a station house. But those decisions came in a relatively brief period of time uncharaastic of the court as a whole. Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scot decisions are much characteristic of Supreme Court jurisprudence over two hundred years than Brown v. Board. That's particularly true of the court today. So when I get both sided, when I get the argument that "you didn't say this stuff when Democrats controlled the court" it's easy enough to conced the point, because we really have very little at stake.
--Hiram
I guess overall I agree with Barrett.
Though 1 or 2 Justices on each end may be partisan, overall I think they just interpret the Constitution and their role differently, so they end up with different results and rulings.
Abortion is an example. The ruling will vary greatly based on when you think a fetus becomes a human...
Or how you interpret State vs Federal rights within the framework of the Constitution...
I have to say, Barrett sounded ridiculous. It's as if she had no comprehension of appearances, or for that matter the partisan origins of her absurd judicial theories. On a basic level, "originalism" makes no sense because it is based on assumptions we know are not true, such as the notion that a group of diverse individuals in a legislative body, share an intent. The problem too is that the document itself, which led directly to the worst war in American history has been substantially revised in the centuries since it was written. In it's original version, it no longers exists as a binding legal document.
The relationship between politics and judicial philosophy is well know. It is certainly understood on my side, and it is utterly amazing to me that Justice Barrett can claim it doesn't exist on hers. Where is both siderism when we need it most?
--Hiram
I am pretty sure they evaluate and rule based on the Constitution and Its Amendments.
As they should...
I am pretty sure they evaluate and rule based on the Constitution and Its Amendments.
If that were the case, she would never have been the choice of the Federalist Society. Those guys aren't dumb.
--Hiram
Federalist Society seems okay with legally passed amendments....
It just kind of startled me when Justice Barrett claimed not to be a political hack. It simply did not occur to me that she wasn't one, just not the kind who does a lot of lit dropping.
--Hiram
Post a Comment