3 ms·

> It is widely thought that SCOTUS decides based on ideology and politics, and only justifies it with the text of the Constitution after the fact. In addition

by Gormo 4y ago

> It is widely thought that SCOTUS decides based on ideology and politics, and only justifies it with the text of the Constitution after the fact. In addition to this being widely thought, do you happen to have any evidence that indicates whether or not it is true? My initial inclination is to suspect that it is not. My personal experience with arguments deriding the constitutional coherence of SCOTUS jurisprudence usually involves people who are bringing their own political/ideological bias into their evaluation of court rulings -- often without even reading the rulings themselves -- and/or applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution. See, for example, discussions surrounding the Citizens United ruling, where almost all of the controversy involves incorrect assumptions of both what was at issue in the case and what the ruling concluded. While there have been breaks with stare decisis in some important cases over the years, by and large, these seem to be exceptions rather than the rule. The idea of the court abandoning the increasingly expansive interpretation of the commerce clause that's been at the basis of a huge amount of federal law for the past century, just to enable Texas to regulate the internet for the entire globe, seems incredibly far-fetched.

jfengel 4y ago
My evidence is that the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are either unanimous (when they don't represent an ideological issue) or along party lines (when they do). If they were really "applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution", we would see a wider variety of votes. Instead, we see the same lines come up over and over. Even if you don't read the counter-arguments, you know where to find them -- in the dissents from the Court members nominated by the opposite party. I do not doubt that the vast majority of Citizens United discussions are of no merit -- that applies to practically every discussion. But you can find a scholarly disagreement in the decision of four Supreme Court members -- all of whom were nominated by the opposite political party. Even if this case fails to "enable Texas to regulate the internet for the entire globe", I suspect that it will only do so via a 5-4 ruling with only 1 or 2 members failing to align ideologically. They are not absolutely unified in their partisan leanings. But when partisanship is the issue, they will vote along their partisan lines much more often than not. So it does not strike me as at all unlikely that they will choose to allow Texas' law. I am not certain of it, but I believe that "incredibly far-fetched" is not a correct characterization.
- Gormo 4y ago
  > My evidence is that the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are either unanimous (when they don't represent an ideological issue) or along party lines (when they do). I don't think that's a valid argument -- there are obviously differences in judicial philosophy that incline judges toward better apparent with one political faction or another, and non-unanimous rulings usually reflect different judicial philosophies. > If they were really "applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution", we would see a wider variety of votes. No, you misunderstood. I was accusing those arguing that jurisprudence is politically motivated of looking at things through the lens of their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution. We don't want the justices on the court doing this. > I do not doubt that the vast majority of Citizens United discussions are of no merit -- that applies to practically every discussion. But you can find a scholarly disagreement in the decision of four Supreme Court members -- all of whom were nominated by the opposite political party. No, I'm not claiming that discussions themselves have no merit, but rather that critiques of the ruling in public discourse are often based on factually incorrect assumptions about what the ruling involved.
mrguyorama 4y ago
The fact of the matter is the constitution is a vague enough document to justify anything you want with enough legal hand wringing. Roe v. Wade was based on a privacy protection. For decades the Supreme Court's opinion was that the 2nd amendment only justified very limited gun rights. The constitution has been claimed to both support, and limit literal slave rights. There are even openly different ways that people approach "interpreting" the constitution. Anyone who works with documents that "define" a contract or API should understand just how vague and useless the constitution is as a literal reference document. That's why the same words have been used to "justify" countless contrary opinions over just 250 years

by Gormo 4y ago

jfengel 4y ago

My evidence is that the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are either unanimous (when they don't represent an ideological issue) or along party lines (when they do). If they were really "applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution", we would see a wider variety of votes. Instead, we see the same lines come up over and over. Even if you don't read the counter-arguments, you know where to find them -- in the dissents from the Court members nominated by the opposite party. I do not doubt that the vast majority of Citizens United discussions are of no merit -- that applies to practically every discussion. But you can find a scholarly disagreement in the decision of four Supreme Court members -- all of whom were nominated by the opposite political party. Even if this case fails to "enable Texas to regulate the internet for the entire globe", I suspect that it will only do so via a 5-4 ruling with only 1 or 2 members failing to align ideologically. They are not absolutely unified in their partisan leanings. But when partisanship is the issue, they will vote along their partisan lines much more often than not. So it does not strike me as at all unlikely that they will choose to allow Texas' law. I am not certain of it, but I believe that "incredibly far-fetched" is not a correct characterization.

Gormo 4y ago
> My evidence is that the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are either unanimous (when they don't represent an ideological issue) or along party lines (when they do). I don't think that's a valid argument -- there are obviously differences in judicial philosophy that incline judges toward better apparent with one political faction or another, and non-unanimous rulings usually reflect different judicial philosophies. > If they were really "applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution", we would see a wider variety of votes. No, you misunderstood. I was accusing those arguing that jurisprudence is politically motivated of looking at things through the lens of their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the constitution. We don't want the justices on the court doing this. > I do not doubt that the vast majority of Citizens United discussions are of no merit -- that applies to practically every discussion. But you can find a scholarly disagreement in the decision of four Supreme Court members -- all of whom were nominated by the opposite political party. No, I'm not claiming that discussions themselves have no merit, but rather that critiques of the ruling in public discourse are often based on factually incorrect assumptions about what the ruling involved.

mrguyorama 4y ago

The fact of the matter is the constitution is a vague enough document to justify anything you want with enough legal hand wringing. Roe v. Wade was based on a privacy protection. For decades the Supreme Court's opinion was that the 2nd amendment only justified very limited gun rights. The constitution has been claimed to both support, and limit literal slave rights. There are even openly different ways that people approach "interpreting" the constitution. Anyone who works with documents that "define" a contract or API should understand just how vague and useless the constitution is as a literal reference document. That's why the same words have been used to "justify" countless contrary opinions over just 250 years