7 ms·

> Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal is

> Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues. This is the naive version of how SCOTUS works that they teach us in elementary school. History has shown that the Supreme Court is a political body with its own political agenda. The doctrine and precedent cited is used as a justification for whatever policy they actually want to enact. Yes, there are some guidelines and guardrails, but this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. They choose their interpretation of law based on the actual impact they want to have on society.

philwelch 4y ago
The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.
- plandis 4y ago
  > The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. _in your opinion_, you mean?
- rat87 4y ago
  Have you seen the Dobbs decision? It's about what policies the judges personally prefer
  - SllX 4y ago
    The one that returns the decision to make policy on a controversial subject matter back to the people and their elected representatives, per the opinion of the Court?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I personally like the Roe standard, but it was made out whole cloth constitutionally.
- scarface74 4y ago
  If you ignore that whole “gerrymandering is okay”. Thomas wants to revisit a lot of rulings like the one that gave gay people to right to get married. But I bet he won’t revisit “Loving vs Virginia”.
  - coffeemug 4y ago
    Scalia described how to handle these cases very clearly. If the court overreached but there is broad consensus on the issue, it’s water under the bridge. If the issue is still controversial, it’s fair game. Nobody thinks we should revisit interracial marriage, and so under this interpretation it won’t be revisited.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      Which is of course odd since it flies directly in the face of Scalia's "originalism", and lays bare that the constitution is a living document. It also means that by the very act of objecting to the ruling, I am creating precedent to repeal, since I am "creating controversy".
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Rights being “fair game” isn’t exactly something I’m excited about.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Are you sure about that? https://www.al.com/entertainment/2014/10/how_do_christians_feel_about_i.html https://www.al.com/entertainment/2014/10/how_do_christians_f... Anecdotally, I am Black and live in in a predominantly White county that was a famous “sun down town” (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0) in the 80s. The people in that video still exist in the county. They just have been overrun by professionals moving in as builders took advantage of abundant land and built houses over the last ten years. It’s just not as acceptable to espouse those views in modern society. I’m sure some of the family members of the White girls my (step)son dates (the county is still only 3.8% Black) would not approve of their relative dating my son. Don’t get me wrong, by “relatives”, I mean grandparents, older relatives, etc. I’ve never sensed any hostility from parents. But that could be because they think we “are one of the good ones”
- EricDeb 4y ago
  So flip the entire thing and say Congress and the presidency were hyper-progressive. Do you not think this court would use the constitution to strike down their laws (say universal healthcare or something)? They are only rolling back these excesses because it fits their ideology.
  - InTheArena 4y ago
    They have been hyper-progressive, and hyper-regressive. As RBG noted - the USSC got out "in front of" the law with Roe V. Wade - which resulted in it invalidating every state law (pro or anti-abortion) and caused a era of dramatically increased polarization. They also wrote Dredd Scott, Ferguson, Citizens United, and Korematsu. At what point do you constrain the power of the supreme court to make law as opposed to interpret it? The Supreme Court has done far more damage then help, historically.
    - bearjaws 4y ago
      Saying that Roe v Wade resulted in an era of increased polarization is completely sidelining the facts that A) women we're suffering from the lack of the right at the time. B) that churches and GOP actually drove the polarization, they chose to use it as a device to divide. It would be like saying abolition of slavery was too soon because it caused the civil war... Who cares the law shouldn't have to wait for cave men to move forward.
      - InTheArena 4y ago
        Funny enough - all of the actions that the Supreme Court took to entrench and strengthen slavery arguably were one of the things that caused the Civil War. a) no. States were in the process of legalizing it - with restrictions far more in line with the rest of the democratic world. b) no. In fact, most churches (the SBC for example) polarized _after_ roe v. wade. In fact, most evangelicals were left-leaning prior to this ruling. (Some partisan hacks will insist that it was desegregation that led to this, but Brown versus Board was 1954, and the SBC was still solidly liberal in 1972). Roe v. Wade lit everything on fire. (See RBG's comments on Roe V. Wade), precisely because it was a un-elected court making a change that no law could challenge. It's telling that simply saying "this is not a matter for the supreme court but the people's representatives" is so incredibly controversial. My hope on all of this is that this ends the imperial court - and abortion stops being the mother of all wedge issues, and allows some elements that moved to the right because of the undemocratic change to move back to the left now that the democratic norms are re-established.
- iostream24 4y ago
  I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs: In one session they’ve removed the ability to sue over Miranda rights, stricken down a fifty year precedent and told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act. I don’t doubt that you will claim that these actions are the logical course of originalism in its purest form, but I find it judicial activism of an obtuse society-wrecking despicable sort. They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs Your disagreement doesn't have any effect on reality. Care to back up your claims with actual evidence? > stricken down a fifty year precedent Is it somehow bad to strike down old precedents, regardless of content? > told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act Is it somehow bad to tell US states that they can't do things that would violate the US constitution, which is explicitly meant to apply to all states? > obtuse society-wrecking Translation: "these rulings don't agree with my political positions" (so I'm going to use language that conceals my preference to suggest that they're bad). > They shall go down in our childrens history as villains. Not a constructive addition to the conversation, smells of emotional manipulation.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    You realize that they struck down "may issue" state laws because they violated the federal constitution, right? That is textbook rollback of excess.
    - flanking_pajama 4y ago
      Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason. There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy. The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement. "Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.

philwelch 4y ago

The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.

plandis 4y ago
> The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. _in your opinion_, you mean?
rat87 4y ago
Have you seen the Dobbs decision? It's about what policies the judges personally prefer
- SllX 4y ago
  The one that returns the decision to make policy on a controversial subject matter back to the people and their elected representatives, per the opinion of the Court?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I personally like the Roe standard, but it was made out whole cloth constitutionally.
scarface74 4y ago
If you ignore that whole “gerrymandering is okay”. Thomas wants to revisit a lot of rulings like the one that gave gay people to right to get married. But I bet he won’t revisit “Loving vs Virginia”.
- coffeemug 4y ago
  Scalia described how to handle these cases very clearly. If the court overreached but there is broad consensus on the issue, it’s water under the bridge. If the issue is still controversial, it’s fair game. Nobody thinks we should revisit interracial marriage, and so under this interpretation it won’t be revisited.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    Which is of course odd since it flies directly in the face of Scalia's "originalism", and lays bare that the constitution is a living document. It also means that by the very act of objecting to the ruling, I am creating precedent to repeal, since I am "creating controversy".
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Rights being “fair game” isn’t exactly something I’m excited about.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Are you sure about that? https://www.al.com/entertainment/2014/10/how_do_christians_feel_about_i.html https://www.al.com/entertainment/2014/10/how_do_christians_f... Anecdotally, I am Black and live in in a predominantly White county that was a famous “sun down town” (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0) in the 80s. The people in that video still exist in the county. They just have been overrun by professionals moving in as builders took advantage of abundant land and built houses over the last ten years. It’s just not as acceptable to espouse those views in modern society. I’m sure some of the family members of the White girls my (step)son dates (the county is still only 3.8% Black) would not approve of their relative dating my son. Don’t get me wrong, by “relatives”, I mean grandparents, older relatives, etc. I’ve never sensed any hostility from parents. But that could be because they think we “are one of the good ones”
EricDeb 4y ago
So flip the entire thing and say Congress and the presidency were hyper-progressive. Do you not think this court would use the constitution to strike down their laws (say universal healthcare or something)? They are only rolling back these excesses because it fits their ideology.
- InTheArena 4y ago
  They have been hyper-progressive, and hyper-regressive. As RBG noted - the USSC got out "in front of" the law with Roe V. Wade - which resulted in it invalidating every state law (pro or anti-abortion) and caused a era of dramatically increased polarization. They also wrote Dredd Scott, Ferguson, Citizens United, and Korematsu. At what point do you constrain the power of the supreme court to make law as opposed to interpret it? The Supreme Court has done far more damage then help, historically.
  - bearjaws 4y ago
    Saying that Roe v Wade resulted in an era of increased polarization is completely sidelining the facts that A) women we're suffering from the lack of the right at the time. B) that churches and GOP actually drove the polarization, they chose to use it as a device to divide. It would be like saying abolition of slavery was too soon because it caused the civil war... Who cares the law shouldn't have to wait for cave men to move forward.
    - InTheArena 4y ago
      Funny enough - all of the actions that the Supreme Court took to entrench and strengthen slavery arguably were one of the things that caused the Civil War. a) no. States were in the process of legalizing it - with restrictions far more in line with the rest of the democratic world. b) no. In fact, most churches (the SBC for example) polarized _after_ roe v. wade. In fact, most evangelicals were left-leaning prior to this ruling. (Some partisan hacks will insist that it was desegregation that led to this, but Brown versus Board was 1954, and the SBC was still solidly liberal in 1972). Roe v. Wade lit everything on fire. (See RBG's comments on Roe V. Wade), precisely because it was a un-elected court making a change that no law could challenge. It's telling that simply saying "this is not a matter for the supreme court but the people's representatives" is so incredibly controversial. My hope on all of this is that this ends the imperial court - and abortion stops being the mother of all wedge issues, and allows some elements that moved to the right because of the undemocratic change to move back to the left now that the democratic norms are re-established.
iostream24 4y ago
I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs: In one session they’ve removed the ability to sue over Miranda rights, stricken down a fifty year precedent and told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act. I don’t doubt that you will claim that these actions are the logical course of originalism in its purest form, but I find it judicial activism of an obtuse society-wrecking despicable sort. They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs Your disagreement doesn't have any effect on reality. Care to back up your claims with actual evidence? > stricken down a fifty year precedent Is it somehow bad to strike down old precedents, regardless of content? > told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act Is it somehow bad to tell US states that they can't do things that would violate the US constitution, which is explicitly meant to apply to all states? > obtuse society-wrecking Translation: "these rulings don't agree with my political positions" (so I'm going to use language that conceals my preference to suggest that they're bad). > They shall go down in our childrens history as villains. Not a constructive addition to the conversation, smells of emotional manipulation.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  You realize that they struck down "may issue" state laws because they violated the federal constitution, right? That is textbook rollback of excess.
  - flanking_pajama 4y ago
    Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason. There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy. The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement. "Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.