2 ms·

Both reasons are not what's supposed to happen in the institution.

• vlovich123 2y ago
  Why do you say that? They battled FDR over the New Deal for example which was more political than any kind of principled analysis of the law. Here's an article from 2023 alluding to negotiations within the court [1] > decisions issued this month have shown several cross-ideological alliances and likely reflected negotiations among small factions. Not sure where you get that this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, negotiation is expected largely because you'd think that judges would sacrifice their personal politics to enact decisions or communicate them in a way to strengthen the overall institution. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/supreme-court-backchannel-affirmative-action-namby-pambies/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/supreme-court-backch...
  • daveguy 2y ago
    Negotiation, "I'll give you this for that", is very different from legal argument, "This is my interpretation of the law, and I will explain why it is correct." Some may call that negotiation of opinion, but I think there is an important distinction. I seriously doubt they are doing the former.
    • dylan604 2y ago
      That's effectively the judges arguing merits amongst themselves. I would actually think this a good thing. "I'll give you a paid vacation in a posh RV and flights on a private jet" is absolutely a totally different animal.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]