2 ms·
I see that you haven't let facts get in the way of a good theory. I don't think you've read the dissenting arguments yet. The core of this case is how do you
by xpe 4y ago
I see that you haven't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
I don't think you've read the dissenting arguments yet.
The core of this case is how do you interpret legislative text. The current Court is taking a radically strict view of legislation. They act like they are only reading the words. But in fact everyone has to interpret written words somehow. The question is what context do you use when you interpret the words.
Also keep in mind how the conservative justices were picked. Even if the justices truly decide cases based on non-partisan judicial ideologies (doubtful), the composition of the court has been picked in such a way that their decisions have conservative outcomes written all over them.
- abigail95 4y agoLet's go one meta level up. It's not like they cornered the decision into their own branch of government like they did with abortion (before Dobbs). If there's disagreement on how a text should be interpreted I don't care whether a conservative court produces a different opinion to a liberal one. I care whether congress still retains the ultimate authority in the matter, and in this case it does. If congress thinks the court is wrong, it can say so. However I think you'll find that just as there is disagreement within the court as to what this text actually means - there is just as much if not more disagreement in congress. If congress itself is in disagreement - I think being radically strict is a good way to go. I think it's healthy for judicial review and separations of powers for legislative interpetation to be kicked back to congress if there's any disagreement.