5 ms·

> This is a conservative, outcomes-driven court. I find this view to be pretty naive. The vast majority of judges in the US legal system are naturally going to

> This is a conservative, outcomes-driven court. I find this view to be pretty naive. The vast majority of judges in the US legal system are naturally going to be conservative in that the job is to follow the letter of the law. To the extent that progressive justices move up through the legal system is only through political appointments. It seems easier to me to say the vast majority of progressive opinions from the Supreme court have been outcomes driven and the current court is reverting to process-driven (you have to actually pass legislation for legislative changes).

HWR_14 4y ago
> To the extent that progressive justices move up through the legal system is only through political appointments. All federal and most state justices only move up through political appointments. The rest of state justices are directly elected, which is even more political.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > All federal and most state justices only move up through political appointments. Federal justices have either 0 or 1 steps they can move up, and of the ones that can move up, there is only 1 position for them to move into, that of Chief Justice. Judges, OTOH...
eli 4y ago
> The vast majority of judges in the US legal system are naturally going to be conservative in that the job is to follow the letter of the law. C'mon, who's being naive now? The law was already settled on this issue. This case is being heard with the goal of overturning precedent. It's not because we learned new things about the Constitution in the last 20 years.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  Nobody--yourself included--wants us to honor every bad precedent. Should we be stuck with Citizens United for all of eternity? Of course not--everybody wants that sumbitch overturned!. Pretending that you believe precedent to be sacred is both silly and transparently self-serving. > The law was already settled on this issue. The idea of "settled law" is a rhetorical device and nothing more. SCOTUS has been overturning precedent on an almost annual basis for centuries[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_State...
- legitster 4y ago
  > It's not because we learned new things about the Constitution in the last 20 years. Funnily enough, from the majority opinion of the "precedent" they may overturn: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

HWR_14 4y ago

> To the extent that progressive justices move up through the legal system is only through political appointments. All federal and most state justices only move up through political appointments. The rest of state justices are directly elected, which is even more political.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> All federal and most state justices only move up through political appointments. Federal justices have either 0 or 1 steps they can move up, and of the ones that can move up, there is only 1 position for them to move into, that of Chief Justice. Judges, OTOH...

eli 4y ago

> The vast majority of judges in the US legal system are naturally going to be conservative in that the job is to follow the letter of the law. C'mon, who's being naive now? The law was already settled on this issue. This case is being heard with the goal of overturning precedent. It's not because we learned new things about the Constitution in the last 20 years.

marcusverus 4y ago
Nobody--yourself included--wants us to honor every bad precedent. Should we be stuck with Citizens United for all of eternity? Of course not--everybody wants that sumbitch overturned!. Pretending that you believe precedent to be sacred is both silly and transparently self-serving. > The law was already settled on this issue. The idea of "settled law" is a rhetorical device and nothing more. SCOTUS has been overturning precedent on an almost annual basis for centuries[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_State...
legitster 4y ago
> It's not because we learned new things about the Constitution in the last 20 years. Funnily enough, from the majority opinion of the "precedent" they may overturn: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."