5 ms·

“I just don’t understand how a court issuing rulings directly along partisan lines including overriding a massive, twice-confirmed-by-bipartisan-supreme-courts

by nawgz 3y ago

“I just don’t understand how a court issuing rulings directly along partisan lines including overriding a massive, twice-confirmed-by-bipartisan-supreme-courts ruling directly violating the spirit of their confirmation hearings and the usual role of the court could be controversial.” My, grandma, what large bad faith you have!

yieldcrv 3y ago
Another example where they said elected officials can handle it, no matter how disruptive. I see consistency. A court that was acting like a super legislature along partisan lines could easily have taken much further advantage than that, and …. didn’t? They didn't say “its banned, bye”. they said “elected officials should be handling this” no matter how disruptive that is, which is only disruptive because elected officials did not address the issue because they were hoping to be elected again yes, lying to get appointed is a common strategy in the US. I dont think that has bearing on the merit of the ruling itself. I see consistency and congruence, and I dont see absurd wild interpretations that people suggest is occurring
- nawgz 3y ago
  Hahaha what, they literally overrode 2 past court’s rulings after saying they wouldn’t. The judicial branch overrode a decision ruled on TWICE, decisively, bipartisanly, with no new legislature involved. That’s only consistent with interpreting them as partisan hacks who don’t respect their institution.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    The blind spot with this common and oft-repeated perspective is that this was near the median amount of time it takes for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Meaning this wasn’t unique or rare or an outlier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962613 the rationale presented in the case was a reversion to the mean, where the court doesn't function as a surrogate for the legislature. grasping at the procedural aspects of appointment because the judicial review was sound but disruptive suggests that these aren't strong arguments about the judges.
bhawks 3y ago
[flagged]
- nawgz 3y ago
  Sure, it’s unsurprising, but goes directly against how the GP was implying the court behaves. Adjacent political commentary isn’t wrong but is a different conversation
  - bhawks 3y ago
    The point being that the politicalization of the court could have been short circuited if politicians did their jobs legislating abortion access into law. We wouldnt need to have the charade of the past few SCOTUS confirmation hearings about Roe because instead of overturning a prior decision the court would have had to find some construction to claim that an abortion access law was unconstitutional.

by nawgz 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

Another example where they said elected officials can handle it, no matter how disruptive. I see consistency. A court that was acting like a super legislature along partisan lines could easily have taken much further advantage than that, and …. didn’t? They didn't say “its banned, bye”. they said “elected officials should be handling this” no matter how disruptive that is, which is only disruptive because elected officials did not address the issue because they were hoping to be elected again yes, lying to get appointed is a common strategy in the US. I dont think that has bearing on the merit of the ruling itself. I see consistency and congruence, and I dont see absurd wild interpretations that people suggest is occurring

nawgz 3y ago
Hahaha what, they literally overrode 2 past court’s rulings after saying they wouldn’t. The judicial branch overrode a decision ruled on TWICE, decisively, bipartisanly, with no new legislature involved. That’s only consistent with interpreting them as partisan hacks who don’t respect their institution.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  The blind spot with this common and oft-repeated perspective is that this was near the median amount of time it takes for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Meaning this wasn’t unique or rare or an outlier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962613 the rationale presented in the case was a reversion to the mean, where the court doesn't function as a surrogate for the legislature. grasping at the procedural aspects of appointment because the judicial review was sound but disruptive suggests that these aren't strong arguments about the judges.

bhawks 3y ago

[flagged]

nawgz 3y ago
Sure, it’s unsurprising, but goes directly against how the GP was implying the court behaves. Adjacent political commentary isn’t wrong but is a different conversation
- bhawks 3y ago
  The point being that the politicalization of the court could have been short circuited if politicians did their jobs legislating abortion access into law. We wouldnt need to have the charade of the past few SCOTUS confirmation hearings about Roe because instead of overturning a prior decision the court would have had to find some construction to claim that an abortion access law was unconstitutional.