4 ms·
> why isn’t the same true for the liberalism which preceded it? > why not that earlier one too? I never made any claims on these other eras. It could be, an ar
by juve1996 4y ago
> why isn’t the same true for the liberalism which preceded it?
> why not that earlier one too?
I never made any claims on these other eras. It could be, an argument could be made.
but if you agree the Roberts and Rehnquist courts were conservative, then this court simply must be more so. Perhaps not as partisan as some liberal courts. You can't dismiss that this court is partisan simply because you agree with its decisions.
- skissane 4y ago> but if you agree the Roberts and Rehnquist courts were conservative, then this court simply must be more so. This is the Roberts court. > Perhaps not as partisan as some liberal courts. You can't dismiss that this court is partisan simply because you agree with its decisions. What does “partisan” mean in this context? What makes this court “partisan”? If “partisan” means displaying ideological favouritism, then the court has been partisan for a very long time, and this court is not fundamentally more “partisan” than its predecessors, even as the favoured ideology has shifted over time - completely independently of whether I or anyone agrees with any of those decisions. Whereas, if that’s not what you mean by “partisan”, what do you mean by it?