2 ms·

I expect a lot of people would agree with you. Though I'd bet about half would disagree on which justices were the politicians...

ceejayoz 7y ago
One of those halves has more evidence, though. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conservative-group/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conse... > Conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas is launching yet another project to wage war on multiple fronts of America’s most heated cultural and political debates. This time, however, her plan will include a project to “protect President Trump” using at least two new campaign-related political entities, according to a presentation obtained by The Intercept and Documented. > Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, unveiled the new venture in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, donors, and Christian-right leaders last month, seeming to make reference to the movement disarray and electoral losses suffered by conservatives in the Trump era — and the gains made by left-wing groups and politicians. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-... > Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.
- pstuart 7y ago
  This was one of the points I had in mind.
- AuryGlenz 7y ago
  I’ll counterargue and say that the side that interprets the constitution as a “living document” instead of what’s actually written is by far more political in their rulings for that reason alone.
  - DSMan195276 7y ago
    > instead of what’s actually written Isn't the whole problem determining what is "actually written"? It seems kinda silly to me to argue "well obviously they meant X" when there's clearly debate on the subject.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Both sides of the debate treat it regularly as a living document, when convenient. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradicto...
a_humean 7y ago
Both groups are wrong, they are all politicians and pseudo senators of an upper parliamentary chamber. Its just another bizzare American political ritual of pretending to believe things about their politics that are plainly not true. Pretending that the supreme court and the entire state and federal court system isn't part of the party system despite all judges at all levels being public figures cheifly identified by their unoffical or offical party affiliation. There literately isn't a single issue of political importance that isn't actively subjected to review and amendment by America's highest court.

ceejayoz 7y ago

One of those halves has more evidence, though. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conservative-group/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conse... > Conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas is launching yet another project to wage war on multiple fronts of America’s most heated cultural and political debates. This time, however, her plan will include a project to “protect President Trump” using at least two new campaign-related political entities, according to a presentation obtained by The Intercept and Documented. > Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, unveiled the new venture in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, donors, and Christian-right leaders last month, seeming to make reference to the movement disarray and electoral losses suffered by conservatives in the Trump era — and the gains made by left-wing groups and politicians. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-... > Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.

pstuart 7y ago
This was one of the points I had in mind.
AuryGlenz 7y ago
I’ll counterargue and say that the side that interprets the constitution as a “living document” instead of what’s actually written is by far more political in their rulings for that reason alone.
- DSMan195276 7y ago
  > instead of what’s actually written Isn't the whole problem determining what is "actually written"? It seems kinda silly to me to argue "well obviously they meant X" when there's clearly debate on the subject.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Both sides of the debate treat it regularly as a living document, when convenient. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradicto...

a_humean 7y ago

Both groups are wrong, they are all politicians and pseudo senators of an upper parliamentary chamber. Its just another bizzare American political ritual of pretending to believe things about their politics that are plainly not true. Pretending that the supreme court and the entire state and federal court system isn't part of the party system despite all judges at all levels being public figures cheifly identified by their unoffical or offical party affiliation. There literately isn't a single issue of political importance that isn't actively subjected to review and amendment by America's highest court.