4 ms·
> As much as people complain about activist judges on the bench, SCOTUS does a pretty good job, most of the time, I pretty much agree with you, even though I t
by xp84 3y ago
> As much as people complain about activist judges on the bench, SCOTUS does a pretty good job, most of the time,
I pretty much agree with you, even though I think several of the justices are partisan hacks/stooges. The fortunate thing is that, they're mostly one or two-issue hacks, who seem to believe in their hearts that they are and should be competent professionals in all other matters, and who are keenly aware that they shouldn't just blow things up.* This is bad for those affected by those certain issues (we all know which ones), but thankfully this branch of government isn't populated entirely with careless, clueless people like the ones who are slowly taking over the other branches.
* This makes me wonder if it's almost 100% due to the lack of the need to pander to the extremists who got them in. I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder.
- shadowgovt 3y ago> I suspect that if they ever needed to stand for re-election, the radicalness of SCOTUS decisions would get ever wilder. That was among the concerns that led the framers of the Constitution to make the SCOTUS a lifetime appointment. It's designed to be a brass ring that, once you grab it, nothing should be influencing your rulings but your own heart and mind. The constraint upon that power is that the Court's initial position is the weakest relative to the other branches: any ruling they make that doesn't rest directly on the Constitution can be undone with a change of the law, and nobody shows up in the criminal side of their Court unless the executive decides to try to enforce a law.