4 ms·
Supreme Court rulings are not a popularity contest. It’s intended as an independent (as independent a nominated body can be) that interprets the laws the Congr
by refurb 4y ago
Supreme Court rulings are not a popularity contest. It’s intended as an independent (as independent a nominated body can be) that interprets the laws the Congress passes within the confines of the Constitution.
I for one would fear living in a country where the courts were swayed by public sentiment.
- pavlov 4y agoIt’s hardly an independent body when 67% of members are lifetime political appointees from a party that hasn’t represented a national majority in several decades.
- thenewthotness 4y agoThe entire structure of the US government is meant to guard against rule by a “national majority” amongst other things.
- refurb 4y agoIt's not "from a party", it's nominated "by the Senate". For example, Amy Barrett was confirmed by a vote of 55-43, including 3 Democrats. I'm not sure why you mention "a national majority". It was never a popularity contest. States elect senators, senators confirm Supreme Court justices.
- lovich 4y agoAnd which office proposes said candidates? And how does that office get elected? It’s not crazy for the OP to mention a national majority
- refurb 4y agoWhat do you mean office? The voters elect senators, who nominate candidates and then vote.
- sokoloff 4y agoThe President nominates and the Senate vets/confirms them. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
- refurb 4y agoYou're right. The senate judiciary committee will vote, then the candidate is voted on by the entire senate. Regardless, the confirmation process is conducted by elected representatives. There is no "this party chose them".
- lovich 4y agoA strict reading of the rules says that but the meta behavior of how the political parties interact with those rules means that the scotus judges are de facto chosen by one party or the other.
- refurb 4y agoThen what happens when one party controls the Senate and another the Presidency? Which has happened quite often?
- Ekaros 4y agoOffice that is voted in by people who potentially do not represented 49.9% of the people who voted for them.
- mythopedia 4y ago> On October 26, the Senate confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48, 30 days after her nomination and 8 days before the 2020 presidential election. *Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her, whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted in opposition.* Barrett is the first justice since 1870 to be confirmed without a single vote from the Senate minority party. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
- sokoloff 4y agoIndependent is orthogonal to whether its members match any particular political party provenance. In fact, the more we demand that it match that profile, the less independent it’s likely to become.
- tomp 4y ago> that hasn’t represented a national majority in several decades You can't really make that claim, objectively. US elections aren't decided by national majority, so you can't use them as a measure of national majority. If the game was different, people would play it differently.
- Beltalowda 4y agoThe SCOTUS is "independent" in the sense that it does not have any person or institution they have to answer to, but I'm not sure if that's really all that relevant. The individual members have vastly different views on how to interpret the law, and are clearly put in place for political reasons. And courts should be "swayed by public sentiment". A judge's job is "to judge", and general societal attitudes play part of that. This is why SCOTUS rulings from 1910 are not the same as today. Otherwise we might as well replace all courts with some AI that would interpret the law to the letter.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> And courts should be "swayed by public sentiment". That's problematic. Part of the function of courts and judges is to convince people not to "take the law into their own hands", and mete-out punishment by mob. That incentivizes courts to hand-down more severe sentences, especially in scandalous cases. Another part is to interpret the law fairly (Justice as Fairness), a function that is often at odds with the former function. I don't think it's at all the business of courts to try to appease the mob; that leads inevitably to trial-by-tabloid, which is no kind of justice.
- Beltalowda 4y agoWell, you turned "general societal attitudes" in to "appease the mob", which is a very different thing. In 1986 the SCOTUS rules that consensual homosexual sex in private could be banned (Bowers v. Hardwick). Such a ruling would be almost unthinkable today, and was already overturned in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). All the arguments used in 1986 and 2003 could still be used today because the constitution hasn't changed, but what is and isn't societally acceptable on this front very much has. I'm not talking about whatever was in the papers this week, or the opinion polls this year, or whatever Biden or Trump or whomever said last week, I'm talking about broad and general shifts in attitudes that take place over years and decades.
- refurb 4y agoThere are very few universal beliefs among humans, as such, any position of power is going to have a political aspect to it. It's unavoidable. Suffice to say, both parties' presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices that never made it past confirmation. Despite the voting procedure, both parties need to find nominees that are at least palatable to some portion of both parties. Extremes in either direction are generally dropped pretty quickly. And courts are swayed by public sentiment, but it generally takes a long time for such social sentiment to filter up to the courts. And that's a good thing. The last thing we need is a court that decides cases on the whim's and fancies of the average voter.