3 ms·
> They interpreted existing laws In the dissent at least, the court is very much interpreting court precedent and almost entirely ignoring the law itself
by theratattack 3y ago
> They interpreted existing laws
In the dissent at least, the court is very much interpreting court precedent and almost entirely ignoring the law itself
- polski-g 3y agoLiberal SCOTUS opinions talk a lot about morality and societal harm, rarely about the legality of the subject at hand. It is Congress' job to deal with morality and harm, not the judicial branch.
- eli 3y agoConservatives also care deeply about morality and society, but their opinions often hide behind whatever legal interpretation gives them the policy outcome they desire. Thomas is a textualist when the text is favorable. If it's not, suddenly historical context and the founder's intent becomes crucial.
- koolba 3y agoThe Jackson dissent opener is a great example of this: > Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens. They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the genera- tions. Every moment these gaps persist is a moment in which this great country falls short of actualizing one of its foundational principles—the “self-evident” truth that all of us are created equal. Apparently anything that doesn’t further a final state of equality of outcome is inherently racist and it’s the governments job to make that happen.