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 I don't think

>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 I don't think that is the case and in fact I think you are getting it a bit backwards. The justices have an ideology which forms their view on how to interpret the Constitution and there are some serious questions to be had on the Constitution. Enumerated vs implied powers, incorporation of the bill of rights, etc. Their ideology forms their views on these issues. Once they formed their view on these issues they believe that is the real meaning of the Constitution. Their interpretation of the Constitution is then used to justify their rulings. It may look like they are doing the opposite, but that is because you don't understand their interpretation of the Constitution. They do tend to be decently consistent when you understand their positions on the Constitution.

jfengel 4y ago
It's difficult to separate out whether their abstract Constitutional ideology exists prior to their political leanings, or vice versa, because the two are so closely correlated. There are no "originalist" left-wing justices, and it's impossible to tell whether one becomes an originalist because the same thinking also causes them to have right-wing views, or vice versa, or if there is some other underlying cause. It is clear that they are chosen for their positions based on the expected outcomes. Regardless of what's going on behind the closed doors, the outcomes seem entirely pre-determined based on the political affiliation of the President who nominated them and the Senate who confirmed them. I personally don't think that the legal reasoning is as consistent as you believe it is, but I think that's a matter of opinion. I also don't think it matters, since the outcomes are the only thing that matters and are so highly correlated with partisanship -- as they were designed to be. The effect on the individual is the same. Presumably we'll find out in this instance. The OP was claiming that the Court would certainly vote not to uphold a state law from their political allies. I've explained why I disagree. Next June we'll find out.

jfengel 4y ago

It's difficult to separate out whether their abstract Constitutional ideology exists prior to their political leanings, or vice versa, because the two are so closely correlated. There are no "originalist" left-wing justices, and it's impossible to tell whether one becomes an originalist because the same thinking also causes them to have right-wing views, or vice versa, or if there is some other underlying cause. It is clear that they are chosen for their positions based on the expected outcomes. Regardless of what's going on behind the closed doors, the outcomes seem entirely pre-determined based on the political affiliation of the President who nominated them and the Senate who confirmed them. I personally don't think that the legal reasoning is as consistent as you believe it is, but I think that's a matter of opinion. I also don't think it matters, since the outcomes are the only thing that matters and are so highly correlated with partisanship -- as they were designed to be. The effect on the individual is the same. Presumably we'll find out in this instance. The OP was claiming that the Court would certainly vote not to uphold a state law from their political allies. I've explained why I disagree. Next June we'll find out.