4 ms·

So often it seems that people are upset about SCOTUS decisions, especially when it's to strike down an existing law, because they feel that what that struck law

So often it seems that people are upset about SCOTUS decisions, especially when it's to strike down an existing law, because they feel that what that struck law was doing was a good thing. It's not the Court's job to decide what is good policy and bad policy. The Court's job is to decide what's legal within the framework of the Constitution, the country's treaties, and other laws. It's quite possible that SCOTUS is striking down a law that was a really good law, and would have been really good policy. But the Court isn't supposed to be looking at that. They're supposed to be looking at our system of laws, and deciding based on that. To the extent that good policy is being struck down, you need to look to the Legislators (or in this case, the Executive) who are doing a bad job of fitting the policy into our system of laws. Or if that system of laws is the problem, then work on changing that system. Don't blame the Court when they're doing their job properly, noting that the rest of the government is violating our laws. These kinds of controls are important in the big picture.

malfist 3y ago
Big stretch to say the court was doing it's job properly here
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
krger 3y ago
Go ahead and read the dissent if you think the Court was acting properly here.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
The Supreme Court manufacturered a "Major Questions" doctrine that's vague enough to apply to anything, but in practice only to policies that the Republican judge majority has ideological disagreements with. I encourage you to read the court's decision. It's partisanship packaged in ad hoc legal justification.
- CWuestefeld 3y ago
  So are you admitting that the decision we're talking about here is a good one, and just lamenting that it isn't applied in certain other cases? Which are the cases where you believe it should have been applied? Or are you saying that the Major Questions doctrine is bad, and that so long as some addled brain can come up with the slightest chain of rationale to something in an otherwise-unrelated law, we should always open the floodgates? Because if legislating leads to such danger of misinterpretation, then I think we should all be praying for a whole lot more gridlock so that the Executive (whatever party he/she may be from) gets less rationale to do whatever the heck they want.
  - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
    >So are you admitting that the decision we're talking about here is a good one Quote where I'm "admitting" that the decision is good.
legitster 3y ago
To add to this, it frustrates me when people complain about institutions being "undemocratic" and then get upset by the Supreme Court upholding the authority of congress. I get that they are striking down laws that might be good things. But keep in mind that we are all guilty of picking and choosing our justification when it fits our side.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
canyonero 3y ago
Although, I was hoping for forgiveness to proceed. The decision is not really the upsetting part (for me). IMO the interpretations of the legal framework and decisions for SCOTUS often quite conveniently align to modern political party lines. As I've mentioned in another comment, SCOTUS is compromised by political interests despite the facade of impartiality. The legal framework we have is no different than the bible or quran or any other text that has produces religions, political parties or ideologies. There are many interpretations one could make about such texts, but somehow judgement often is split by modern party affiliation. It was kind of cool to think for a while that SCOTUS was just doing their job and above political polarization. I no longer hold faith in that belief.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Obviously the court is somewhat political (as it always has been). But I think modern reporting makes it seem far more that way than it actually is. For example look at Bostock from just a few years ago.
isykt 3y ago
This explanation is always trotted out whenever a decision is unpopular, portraying the court as a neutral arbiter that's just reading the rules back to the public. The truth is, that hasn't been the court's operating model since at least 1964, when the court decided Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). In that case, the court decided that since someone could cross state lines to stay at a hotel, that Congress had the right to tell a business who their customers were under the Interstate Commerce clause. For clarity, the Commerce Clause states that Congress has the right to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States The court is textualist or pragmatist depending on its political leaning. The court is political. The court has no code of ethics, and the mechanism to remove justices for bad behavior is ill-defined in the constitution. In summary, they get to play by their own rules, and pretending otherwise is pure fantasy.
- jaybrendansmith 3y ago
  Um, that was a unanimous decision where they indicated that the Commerce Clause extends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside a state. Essentially, the Court held the government could prevent the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause. Since the motel was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia, this showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power. Please explain to me how is that political, given the Civil Rights Act?
  - isykt 3y ago
    [dead]
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    It was political because the federal government had not previously had the right to regulate businesses within a state. Only states could do that themselves. But gradually this overreach of the federal government has expanded and now they can essentially regulate anything because it could hypothetically tangentially affect commerce (see Gonzales v Raich). It is clear that the framers did not intend the interstate commerce clause to be used in this way, they intended for states to be able to regulate most things themselves (the so-called “police power”).
mcphage 3y ago
> So often it seems that people are upset about SCOTUS decisions, especially when it's to strike down an existing law > Don't blame the Court when they're doing their job properly Part of the problem is that, there isn't a lot of widespread confidence that they are doing their job properly. When they do their job properly, part of that is to strike down bad laws. But the mere fact of them striking down a law doesn't mean that they did their job properly. There's not a lot of trust in the Supreme Court right now—this Court especially.

malfist 3y ago

Big stretch to say the court was doing it's job properly here

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

krger 3y ago

Go ahead and read the dissent if you think the Court was acting properly here.

ZoomerCretin 3y ago

The Supreme Court manufacturered a "Major Questions" doctrine that's vague enough to apply to anything, but in practice only to policies that the Republican judge majority has ideological disagreements with. I encourage you to read the court's decision. It's partisanship packaged in ad hoc legal justification.

CWuestefeld 3y ago
So are you admitting that the decision we're talking about here is a good one, and just lamenting that it isn't applied in certain other cases? Which are the cases where you believe it should have been applied? Or are you saying that the Major Questions doctrine is bad, and that so long as some addled brain can come up with the slightest chain of rationale to something in an otherwise-unrelated law, we should always open the floodgates? Because if legislating leads to such danger of misinterpretation, then I think we should all be praying for a whole lot more gridlock so that the Executive (whatever party he/she may be from) gets less rationale to do whatever the heck they want.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  >So are you admitting that the decision we're talking about here is a good one Quote where I'm "admitting" that the decision is good.

legitster 3y ago

To add to this, it frustrates me when people complain about institutions being "undemocratic" and then get upset by the Supreme Court upholding the authority of congress. I get that they are striking down laws that might be good things. But keep in mind that we are all guilty of picking and choosing our justification when it fits our side.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

canyonero 3y ago

Although, I was hoping for forgiveness to proceed. The decision is not really the upsetting part (for me). IMO the interpretations of the legal framework and decisions for SCOTUS often quite conveniently align to modern political party lines. As I've mentioned in another comment, SCOTUS is compromised by political interests despite the facade of impartiality. The legal framework we have is no different than the bible or quran or any other text that has produces religions, political parties or ideologies. There are many interpretations one could make about such texts, but somehow judgement often is split by modern party affiliation. It was kind of cool to think for a while that SCOTUS was just doing their job and above political polarization. I no longer hold faith in that belief.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Obviously the court is somewhat political (as it always has been). But I think modern reporting makes it seem far more that way than it actually is. For example look at Bostock from just a few years ago.

isykt 3y ago

This explanation is always trotted out whenever a decision is unpopular, portraying the court as a neutral arbiter that's just reading the rules back to the public. The truth is, that hasn't been the court's operating model since at least 1964, when the court decided Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). In that case, the court decided that since someone could cross state lines to stay at a hotel, that Congress had the right to tell a business who their customers were under the Interstate Commerce clause. For clarity, the Commerce Clause states that Congress has the right to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States The court is textualist or pragmatist depending on its political leaning. The court is political. The court has no code of ethics, and the mechanism to remove justices for bad behavior is ill-defined in the constitution. In summary, they get to play by their own rules, and pretending otherwise is pure fantasy.

jaybrendansmith 3y ago
Um, that was a unanimous decision where they indicated that the Commerce Clause extends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside a state. Essentially, the Court held the government could prevent the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause. Since the motel was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia, this showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power. Please explain to me how is that political, given the Civil Rights Act?
- isykt 3y ago
  [dead]
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  It was political because the federal government had not previously had the right to regulate businesses within a state. Only states could do that themselves. But gradually this overreach of the federal government has expanded and now they can essentially regulate anything because it could hypothetically tangentially affect commerce (see Gonzales v Raich). It is clear that the framers did not intend the interstate commerce clause to be used in this way, they intended for states to be able to regulate most things themselves (the so-called “police power”).

mcphage 3y ago

> So often it seems that people are upset about SCOTUS decisions, especially when it's to strike down an existing law > Don't blame the Court when they're doing their job properly Part of the problem is that, there isn't a lot of widespread confidence that they are doing their job properly. When they do their job properly, part of that is to strike down bad laws. But the mere fact of them striking down a law doesn't mean that they did their job properly. There's not a lot of trust in the Supreme Court right now—this Court especially.