Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

It's kinda ridiculous that the Supreme Court is politically polarised.

[Loud Whispers]

It's kinda ridiculous that the Supreme Court is politically polarised.

Murrica is polarized, so the court is polarized

[TheBiggerFish]

It's kinda ridiculous that the Supreme Court is politically polarised.

Indeed.  But then again, not really.

[MarcAFK]

It's kinda ridiculous that the Supreme Court is politically polarised.

Indeed.  But then again, not really.

Well they're down one justice ATM so it couldn't have been a 4-5 split.
But really this is just the court saying Obama doesn't have a right to push through that particular executive order, it should be voted in by congress or whatever.

[Orange Wizard]

It's kinda ridiculous that the Supreme Court is politically polarised.

Indeed.  But then again, not really.

... how is it not ridiculous? Courts aren't supposed to be loyal to a political party, they're supposed to uphold the law.

[Rolan7]

Eh, keep in mind that said law (constitution) was written in... 1789, apparently.
The interpretation of that document is not a simple matter of what it literally says...  Nor what the writers probably meant.  It's somewhere in between, interpreted with the benefit of modern knowledge.

like, that non-land-owners and women and blacks are people too

Yeah we worship them like a pantheon sometime, but that's just because we don't (officially) have a state religion.  The founding fathers really weren't perfect...  Just relatively insightful for the time.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's kinda ridiculous that the Supreme Court is politically polarised.

Indeed.  But then again, not really.

... how is it not ridiculous? Courts aren't supposed to be loyal to a political party, they're supposed to uphold the law.

The Supreme Court isn't loyal to the parties, per se. Though Supreme Court Justices are typically clearly put on either the liberal or conservative side of the isle, it's also a pretty common complaint that one Justice or another "betrays" the party they're supposedly aligned to by not supporting their interests, hence all the talk about wanting a President who will appoint a Justice who will remain "loyal".

In reality, the best way to assess the loyalties of the Supreme Court is through two factors. First, the Constitutional interpretation they use (Textualism, Originalism, Dynamism....*shudder* Christian Reconstructionism...) and secondly, their normative ethical stance (typically rendered as "liberal" or "conservative", even though that isn't exactly accurate).

[Orange Wizard]

The Supreme Court isn't loyal to the parties, per se. Though Supreme Court Justices are typically clearly put on either the liberal or conservative side of the isle, it's also a pretty common complaint that one Justice or another "betrays" the party they're supposedly aligned to by not supporting their interests, hence all the talk about wanting a President who will appoint a Justice who will remain "loyal".

In reality, the best way to assess the loyalties of the Supreme Court is through two factors. First, the Constitutional interpretation they use (Textualism, Originalism, Dynamism....*shudder* Christian Reconstructionism...) and secondly, their normative ethical stance (typically rendered as "liberal" or "conservative", even though that isn't exactly accurate).

But

whatever happened to having impartial judges

[hector13]

The Supreme Court isn't loyal to the parties, per se. Though Supreme Court Justices are typically clearly put on either the liberal or conservative side of the isle, it's also a pretty common complaint that one Justice or another "betrays" the party they're supposedly aligned to by not supporting their interests, hence all the talk about wanting a President who will appoint a Justice who will remain "loyal".

In reality, the best way to assess the loyalties of the Supreme Court is through two factors. First, the Constitutional interpretation they use (Textualism, Originalism, Dynamism....*shudder* Christian Reconstructionism...) and secondly, their normative ethical stance (typically rendered as "liberal" or "conservative", even though that isn't exactly accurate).

But

whatever happened to having impartial judges

Fack off the law is just another political tool min

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no such thing as impartiality, especially not at that level. The best you can hope for is someone who is highly versed in all the nuances of law and dedicated to the good of the nation even in spite of temporary squabbles amongst elected politicians.

Besides, in some things you don't want impartiality, I wouldn't want a Justice who was impartial to the principles of the Constitution, no matter how fucked their view was. The machine often destroys all the humanity we put into laws, a good Justice ameliorates this.

[Rolan7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Yeah good point...  The 13th amendment fixed it so black people were considered people.
And the 15th made sure they could vote, and the 19th let women vote.

So I think we agree that the constitution was written imperfectly!

Interpretation is common though, amendments are rare.

The Supreme Court isn't loyal to the parties, per se. Though Supreme Court Justices are typically clearly put on either the liberal or conservative side of the isle, it's also a pretty common complaint that one Justice or another "betrays" the party they're supposedly aligned to by not supporting their interests, hence all the talk about wanting a President who will appoint a Justice who will remain "loyal".

In reality, the best way to assess the loyalties of the Supreme Court is through two factors. First, the Constitutional interpretation they use (Textualism, Originalism, Dynamism....*shudder* Christian Reconstructionism...) and secondly, their normative ethical stance (typically rendered as "liberal" or "conservative", even though that isn't exactly accurate).

But

whatever happened to having impartial judges

What does that actually mean, much less how do you test for it?
I'll tell you how - the president choose, congress has to approve.
Checks and balances.
It's not perfect but it's something.

[Sergarr]

The Supreme Court isn't loyal to the parties, per se. Though Supreme Court Justices are typically clearly put on either the liberal or conservative side of the isle, it's also a pretty common complaint that one Justice or another "betrays" the party they're supposedly aligned to by not supporting their interests, hence all the talk about wanting a President who will appoint a Justice who will remain "loyal".

In reality, the best way to assess the loyalties of the Supreme Court is through two factors. First, the Constitutional interpretation they use (Textualism, Originalism, Dynamism....*shudder* Christian Reconstructionism...) and secondly, their normative ethical stance (typically rendered as "liberal" or "conservative", even though that isn't exactly accurate).

But

whatever happened to having impartial judges

same thing that happened with impartial people in politics

they died off due to massive polarisation and radicalization of society.

[misko27]

The Supreme Court isn't loyal to the parties, per se. Though Supreme Court Justices are typically clearly put on either the liberal or conservative side of the isle, it's also a pretty common complaint that one Justice or another "betrays" the party they're supposedly aligned to by not supporting their interests, hence all the talk about wanting a President who will appoint a Justice who will remain "loyal".

In reality, the best way to assess the loyalties of the Supreme Court is through two factors. First, the Constitutional interpretation they use (Textualism, Originalism, Dynamism....*shudder* Christian Reconstructionism...) and secondly, their normative ethical stance (typically rendered as "liberal" or "conservative", even though that isn't exactly accurate).

But

whatever happened to having impartial judges

same thing that happened with impartial people in politics

they died off

who is they? when was this glorious golden age.

[SirQuiamus]

when was this glorious golden age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union