3 ms·

That works in principle but not in practice. The core issue in roe v wade was tossing out precedent while failing to show reasoning why tossing out precedent sh

That works in principle but not in practice. The core issue in roe v wade was tossing out precedent while failing to show reasoning why tossing out precedent should be ok. So now the court seems to be chaotic. Whatever the makeup of the court, they may toss out precedent that doesn’t match the current majority’s interpretation of the constitution (of which there are many). Then suppose the scotus becomes a liberal majority. Then they may reinstate all the tossed out precedents. That’s just chaos, with the main focus becoming which party chooses justices, not any reasonable continuity and coherence of constitutional law.

CWuestefeld 4y ago
I agree with your concerns about thrashing. I think that the fact that justices aren't elected politically, together with their typical lengthy tenure, is intended to buffer against that. But as politics becomes more polarized, perhaps the buffer doesn't serve as well anymore.
- shrimpx 4y ago
  A core problem IMO is that justices are appointed politically. There's an assumption that politicians and their parties will appoint unbiased justices, presumably out of the goodness of their heart and respect for norms... That assumption looks laughably flawed today.
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    Agreed. Elsewhere in this thread someone pointed out that some recent justices may have been... less than truthful... in answers to the Senate during their nomination hearings, at least giving the impression that they'd continue to support Roe. My response to that seems not to have been popular. It's the job of the Senate to help vet the nominees based on their abilities as judges. I don't think the senators should be making these decisions based on the nominee's adherence to a particular ideology. And to the extent that the senators are deciding based on this, it's those very senators that are making the Court political - don't blame the justices.

CWuestefeld 4y ago

I agree with your concerns about thrashing. I think that the fact that justices aren't elected politically, together with their typical lengthy tenure, is intended to buffer against that. But as politics becomes more polarized, perhaps the buffer doesn't serve as well anymore.

shrimpx 4y ago
A core problem IMO is that justices are appointed politically. There's an assumption that politicians and their parties will appoint unbiased justices, presumably out of the goodness of their heart and respect for norms... That assumption looks laughably flawed today.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  Agreed. Elsewhere in this thread someone pointed out that some recent justices may have been... less than truthful... in answers to the Senate during their nomination hearings, at least giving the impression that they'd continue to support Roe. My response to that seems not to have been popular. It's the job of the Senate to help vet the nominees based on their abilities as judges. I don't think the senators should be making these decisions based on the nominee's adherence to a particular ideology. And to the extent that the senators are deciding based on this, it's those very senators that are making the Court political - don't blame the justices.