4 ms·
Ha. The trick is that what's "logical" and what's "partisan" depend entirely on who is speaking, like how cries of "judicial activism" only ever arise when it's
by LiquidSky 6y ago
Ha. The trick is that what's "logical" and what's "partisan" depend entirely on who is speaking, like how cries of "judicial activism" only ever arise when it's a ruling against a conservative position. If it's a ruling FOR the conservative position, it's obviously logical and sound, and possibly correcting previous evil irrational liberal decisions.
- huffmsa 6y agoNo, I rarely read an opinion from the high court that I can't at least understand the logic and reasoning behind, regardless of if I agree with the conclusion
- tyre 6y agoThis is an easy take if you don't follow the court. The cases that tend to get a lot of press tend to be ones with clear ideological lines. But not every case is divided 5–4 along the line of which party nominated the justice. There are a lot of ideological currents that don't fit cleanly into political parties
- CWuestefeld 6y agocries of "judicial activism" only ever arise when it's a ruling against a conservative position I saw a counterexample just this morning. An editorial was arguing that the Court's "interference" in the Michigan election threatens democracy, and the only solution is to pack the court.