3 ms·
The purpose of the SC is widely understood to determine constitutionality. Interpreting the law is perhaps considered more "conservative", but that is good thin
by waterheater 6y ago
The purpose of the SC is widely understood to determine constitutionality. Interpreting the law is perhaps considered more "conservative", but that is good thing because Justices are unelected. Legislate (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) in Congress, not the SC.
- emodendroket 6y agoHere in the practical world, being able to throw out legislation is naturally conservative and, besides that, structural forces make the Supreme Court more conservative than the electorate. The idea that the Court should rule in an impartial way is nice as a soundbite, but does not and has never really described how it operates.
- waterheater 6y agoAgreed, and there's nothing wrong with a judiciary being conservative, particularly since they're unelected and should not act in a manner which legislates. In a control theory sense, the judiciary is an example of feedback, which more naturally lends itself to the "conservative" mindset with its focus on refinement rather than expansion. Anyone who thinks the SC shall be a beacon of impartiality doesn't understand that government is inherently political, the SC notwithstanding. Each Justice will sit on the bench with a particular lens. In that sense, the SC is most just when each Justice sees the world a bit differently with a distortion towards the legal documents themselves. I expect the expansion of seats will decrease a focus on legal documents and focus more on expanding the objectives of a particularly political organization, which abuses the judiciary.
- emodendroket 6y agoI’m not persuaded that purportedly originalist judges who sit on the bench now are really doing what they say, rather than finding post hoc rationalizations for their preferred outcomes.