3 ms·

> You can predict, like clockwork, how the justices will vote on any case with any sort of political implication based on who appointed them. Isn't that distres

> You can predict, like clockwork, how the justices will vote on any case with any sort of political implication based on who appointed them. Isn't that distressing? Doesn't that signal that maybe there's a major problem here? To be fair, you can do this with judges on both sides of the partisan divide. It's good and appropriate to recognize that the Court is a fundamentally political institution and not some mere interpreter of law, and being distressed over that implies that the Court could be some idealized, nonpolitical institution. That's not a useful way to model the Court and never has been.

cogman10 4y ago
> To be fair, you can do this with judges on both sides of the partisan divide. At the supreme court level? Yes, because it takes 4 votes to chose which case gets cert and we have 6 activist justices that want to completely rewrite jurisprudence for political gain. How are the liberal justices supposed to vote when the questions often being asked are now "Hey, should we overrule this long standing precedent for political motivations?" However, standard jurisprudence isn't nearly this bad in the federal court level. The outcomes there can be far more difficult to predict based on who appointed them. > It's good and appropriate to recognize that the Court is a fundamentally political institution and not some mere interpreter of law, and being distressed over that implies that the Court could be some idealized, nonpolitical institution. That's not a useful way to model the Court and never has been. While I don't disagree, unfortunately the constitution was setup with the notion that the SC would be above political divide (hence, being unelected and having lifetime appointments.) I certainly wouldn't mind some sort of constitutional amendment trying to address that. Though, I just don't see it as likely.

cogman10 4y ago

> To be fair, you can do this with judges on both sides of the partisan divide. At the supreme court level? Yes, because it takes 4 votes to chose which case gets cert and we have 6 activist justices that want to completely rewrite jurisprudence for political gain. How are the liberal justices supposed to vote when the questions often being asked are now "Hey, should we overrule this long standing precedent for political motivations?" However, standard jurisprudence isn't nearly this bad in the federal court level. The outcomes there can be far more difficult to predict based on who appointed them. > It's good and appropriate to recognize that the Court is a fundamentally political institution and not some mere interpreter of law, and being distressed over that implies that the Court could be some idealized, nonpolitical institution. That's not a useful way to model the Court and never has been. While I don't disagree, unfortunately the constitution was setup with the notion that the SC would be above political divide (hence, being unelected and having lifetime appointments.) I certainly wouldn't mind some sort of constitutional amendment trying to address that. Though, I just don't see it as likely.