4 ms·

> Roberts is turning out to be one of the most balanced judges Let's be careful not to define "balanced" as 'toward the center of the current justices' ideolog

> Roberts is turning out to be one of the most balanced judges Let's be careful not to define "balanced" as 'toward the center of the current justices' ideological spectrum'. The spectrum of current justices does not represent a real-world or absolute spectrum. If Ginsberg and Breyer retired tomorrow, Roberts would be on the left, for example. > not just ideology Courts should not be applying ideology at all. That's for Congress and the President. Sadly, the SC, especially the right IMHO, is highly and unabashedly ideological these days.

URSpider94 8y ago
I don’t see how the Supreme Court can adjudicate cases without ideology. The entire point is that they are trying to interpret a 200-year-old document and apply it to modern situations. That generally requires having an operating philosophy of the founder’s intent, or of a more modern interpretation of how the meaning changes with the times.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > an operating philosophy of the founder’s intent, or of a more modern interpretation of how the meaning changes with the times That's why we use reason(and law), and not ideology.
  - URSpider94 8y ago
    Asking honestly, how do you interpret the Constitution without some kind of ideology? As an example - and please don't shoot me - you could consider abortion rights. The Constitution certainly doesn't address this issue directly, or even indirectly. In order to make a determination, you have to formulate an opinion on the matter that turns on the rights of, and harms to, the various parties involved, as well as any moral absolutes that you hold true. I can't see how there is any objectively correct answer to this issue that hinges entirely on reason and law, and therefore would be patently obvious. And, I would argue, that's true for MOST of the cases that the Supreme Court accepts for review.

URSpider94 8y ago

I don’t see how the Supreme Court can adjudicate cases without ideology. The entire point is that they are trying to interpret a 200-year-old document and apply it to modern situations. That generally requires having an operating philosophy of the founder’s intent, or of a more modern interpretation of how the meaning changes with the times.

forapurpose 8y ago
> an operating philosophy of the founder’s intent, or of a more modern interpretation of how the meaning changes with the times That's why we use reason(and law), and not ideology.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Asking honestly, how do you interpret the Constitution without some kind of ideology? As an example - and please don't shoot me - you could consider abortion rights. The Constitution certainly doesn't address this issue directly, or even indirectly. In order to make a determination, you have to formulate an opinion on the matter that turns on the rights of, and harms to, the various parties involved, as well as any moral absolutes that you hold true. I can't see how there is any objectively correct answer to this issue that hinges entirely on reason and law, and therefore would be patently obvious. And, I would argue, that's true for MOST of the cases that the Supreme Court accepts for review.