4 ms·
If you think conservatives have a monopoly on this, then take a look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases from FDR through the 1970s or so.
by 1980phipsi 4y ago
If you think conservatives have a monopoly on this, then take a look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases from FDR through the 1970s or so.
- BobbyJo 4y agoWhat make you think they view conservatives as having monopoly on misusing the supreme court?
- eli 4y agoThe Supreme Court is a political organization that likes to pretend it's something else. I think that's always been the case and I agree it isn't inherently one party or the other. That said, with the notable exception of the Warren court, SCOTUS has been conservative for its whole history.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago>That said, with the notable exception of the Warren court, SCOTUS has been conservative for its whole history. I think that depends a lot on one's perspective. If you're very far-left and support all the equity you can dream up, then yes I see how one might think that. I disagree, but still... If that were objectively true, I don't think it's the damning claim you may have meant it to be if you consider the overall history of the USA and contributions to the world.
- puffoflogic 4y agoConstitutional reality is right-biased.
- kube-system 4y agoThe US constitution and the bill of rights are based on classical liberal ideas, like inalienable rights, the consent of the governed, secularism, etc.
- puffoflogic 4y agoThose are all right-wing ideas. "Classical liberalism" is a misleadingly named far-right ideology; it's diametrically opposed to progressivism.
- kube-system 4y agoNot at all. Those ideas were formed in a time when they were not the norm. State religion is about as conservative as you can get, it has existed for all of human history, and was the default until very recently. When the US constitution was adopted it was a progressive change. However, yesterday's progressivism is always today's status quo.
- kube-system 4y agoSCOTUS has frequently made decisions that overturned a conservative prescedent in favor of a liberal one. Many 'landmark' SCOTUS cases are exactly this. Take a short browse down this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisio...
- johncessna 4y agoYou mean like selecting Justices based on their gender and skin color?
- danenania 4y agoIt strikes me as naive to think it would ever work otherwise. Justices are political appointees and political actors. I see no reason to expect anything different. Believing they are somehow "above politics" strikes me as similarly fanciful to believing in the divine right of kings.
- adastra22 4y agoJudges are NOT political appointees. Within the civil service a political appointee is one that can be and usually is dismissed in a change of government. Heads of agencies and such. Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference.
- eli 4y agoThis is needlessly pedantic. They are appointed by politicians.
- adastra22 4y agoWords have meaning, even if that meaning is not clear from the direct composite words used, as in this case. The word “political appointee” has the technical meaning I stated.
- danenania 4y agoAppointed by politicians = political appointee in my book. But yes, they are lifetime political appointees. "Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments specifically so that they are not subject to political interference." I also think this is naive. In my view, they serve lifetime appointments because they don't want to give up power, and no one's been able to force them to so far.
- adastra22 4y agoIt’s written into the constitution.