4 ms·
In fact, knowing how and why these opinions change during this phase could be quite illustrative and interesting. Would also be interesting to see if Roberts r
by cudgy 5y ago
In fact, knowing how and why these opinions change during this phase could be quite illustrative and interesting.
Would also be interesting to see if Roberts received a windfall during his deliberations. Insurance companies surely appreciate the individual mandates … it’s the closest thing to printing money they could achieve.
Earlier today I heard someone state that historically the Supreme Court rules in favor of the large corporate interests. My thought at the time was it did not make sense, since technically supreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if it truly exist?
- cortesoft 5y agoThey are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. They are only appointed, however, if their views match the people who are doing the appointing, who are beholden to many.
- cudgy 5y agoYet there are numerous examples of justices not rendering opinions meeting their appointee’s expectations. Many of these justices serve for decades which is plenty of time for any human to change their viewpoints.
- rascul 5y ago> They are beholden to no one AFTER they are appointed. Article V of the US constitution makes them ultimately beholden to the states. It describes how the constitution can be amended. Such an amendment can possibly threaten the supreme court. Seems very unlikely to happen, though.
- cortesoft 5y agoCongress also has the power to impeach a justice
- datavirtue 5y agoThey are beholden to the people and the people's perception of their credibility. At any time we can dispel that court--or just stop taking it seriously. They are terrified of being waved off. Imagine all the politicians that would jump on board if they saw a large enough groundswell (energized voting bloc) calling for the "non-constitutional illegitimate third branch" to be disbanded in favor of state courts. We are witnessing the same with the "election fraud" Trump populist fervor right now.
- fsagx 5y agosupreme court justices are beholden to Noone. What explains this bias on the part of the Supreme Court, if it truly exist? The people who nominate and confirm them may very well be beholden to any number of interests. Lower federal judges are also appointed for life. It would be logical that those who nominate and confirm would select judges with a record that aligns with whatever issues they (and the ones they are beholden to) find important.
- cudgy 5y agoPredicting future human behavior is fraught with disappointment. Many justices act unpredictability and change opinions over time.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWhich is an inherent part of the process of nominating anyone to any position. Selection is an inherently political process. The goal is to eliminate post selection influences.