4 ms·

I guess this is not a topic that is politically divisive, so the judges were free to vote as they saw fit. Which doesn't say anything about how they will vote o

by rob74 2y ago

I guess this is not a topic that is politically divisive, so the judges were free to vote as they saw fit. Which doesn't say anything about how they will vote on other topics, like abortion, environmental protection etc.

rayiner 2y ago
The justices don't vote on "abortion, environmental protection, etc." They vote on the legal vehicles that have been used to address those things. And views on those legal vehicles map onto judicial philosophies that have nothing to do with the substantive issues. To use an analogy: there's people who think operating systems should be microkernels, and people who think they should be monolithic kernels. Windows NT was created to be a microkernel. But around NT 4.0 they shoved the GUI into the kernel space. If you're on the "Supreme Court of Windows NT," how do you view that? One camp might say, "NT is supposed to be a microkernel, get that GUI out of there." Another might say, "yeah but here in the real world, customers demand a fast GUI so it's fine to cut corners." Constitutional law is basically that, except we're talking about cutting corners with the highest law in the land.
- relaxing 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - hollerith 2y ago
    He's a lawyer with a lot of professional experience. Are you a lawyer?
    - relaxing 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I'm trying to convey how legal conservatives think, as someone who is one. I am, on many policy issues, quite liberal. I think rich people should pay more taxes, people should drive EVs, etc. But ultimately I care more about the rules--especially the rules about who makes decisions and where power is allocated--than I do about what people or outcomes. I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies operating contrary to the tripartite system of government the Founders designed. I care more about the Constitutional rules for allocating power to states than I do about what citizens of those states might do with that power. Etc. Issues like abortion and environmental laws just happen to map onto particular legal issues as an accident of history. If state-by-state legislation leads to widely legalized abortion, for example, I don't think most legal conservatives would support a Roe-like judicial decision ginning up a "right to fetal life" (which actually exists in Germany). If Congress passed environmental laws itself, instead of outsourcing it to an executive agency, I don't think most legal conservatives would be looking for ways to second-guess Congress's judgment. You actually see this in Europe. The legal system in European countries tends to be pretty boring, because they have more social cohesion and can legislate things according to the rules, rather than hacking up the system. The equivalent of Roe, for example, doesn't exist in continental Europe. In an irony, Emmanuel Macron criticized Dobbs when it came down. But France never had anything like Roe. And after Dobbs, France passed a constitutional amendment addressing abortion, which is exactly how legal conservatives would say you should handle the issue!
    - relaxing 2y ago
      > I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies operating contrary to the tripartite system of government the Founders designed. You want to see millions dead to support your political philosophy?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        I think the most redeeming quality of Americans--an inheritance from the British--is that they'll jump off a bridge if they're told to do so by a court and the required procedures have been followed. Rule following, more than anything else, what separates advanced democracies from the third world country I come from. And in the long run it's what will save the most lives and lead to the most prosperity and social harmony.
    - relaxing 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Both examples are expressing the same belief about Dobbs! Yes, I believe the social harmony from allowing these questions to be decided democratically outweighs individual "rights." What about Ireland? Abortion was illegal in Ireland until 2018, and then it was put to the public for vote in a referendum. In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn Ireland's abortion ban (though it did find a due process violation with respect to the lack of procedures for qualifying for a pre-existing exception for life-threatening conditions). That's how the law works in civilized democracies. People make decisions on social issues, not judges.
        browserman 2y ago
        How do feel about Brown v Board?

by rob74 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

The justices don't vote on "abortion, environmental protection, etc." They vote on the legal vehicles that have been used to address those things. And views on those legal vehicles map onto judicial philosophies that have nothing to do with the substantive issues. To use an analogy: there's people who think operating systems should be microkernels, and people who think they should be monolithic kernels. Windows NT was created to be a microkernel. But around NT 4.0 they shoved the GUI into the kernel space. If you're on the "Supreme Court of Windows NT," how do you view that? One camp might say, "NT is supposed to be a microkernel, get that GUI out of there." Another might say, "yeah but here in the real world, customers demand a fast GUI so it's fine to cut corners." Constitutional law is basically that, except we're talking about cutting corners with the highest law in the land.

relaxing 2y ago
[flagged]
- hollerith 2y ago
  He's a lawyer with a lot of professional experience. Are you a lawyer?
  - relaxing 2y ago
    [flagged]
- rayiner 2y ago
  I'm trying to convey how legal conservatives think, as someone who is one. I am, on many policy issues, quite liberal. I think rich people should pay more taxes, people should drive EVs, etc. But ultimately I care more about the rules--especially the rules about who makes decisions and where power is allocated--than I do about what people or outcomes. I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies operating contrary to the tripartite system of government the Founders designed. I care more about the Constitutional rules for allocating power to states than I do about what citizens of those states might do with that power. Etc. Issues like abortion and environmental laws just happen to map onto particular legal issues as an accident of history. If state-by-state legislation leads to widely legalized abortion, for example, I don't think most legal conservatives would support a Roe-like judicial decision ginning up a "right to fetal life" (which actually exists in Germany). If Congress passed environmental laws itself, instead of outsourcing it to an executive agency, I don't think most legal conservatives would be looking for ways to second-guess Congress's judgment. You actually see this in Europe. The legal system in European countries tends to be pretty boring, because they have more social cohesion and can legislate things according to the rules, rather than hacking up the system. The equivalent of Roe, for example, doesn't exist in continental Europe. In an irony, Emmanuel Macron criticized Dobbs when it came down. But France never had anything like Roe. And after Dobbs, France passed a constitutional amendment addressing abortion, which is exactly how legal conservatives would say you should handle the issue!
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies operating contrary to the tripartite system of government the Founders designed. You want to see millions dead to support your political philosophy?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I think the most redeeming quality of Americans--an inheritance from the British--is that they'll jump off a bridge if they're told to do so by a court and the required procedures have been followed. Rule following, more than anything else, what separates advanced democracies from the third world country I come from. And in the long run it's what will save the most lives and lead to the most prosperity and social harmony.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Both examples are expressing the same belief about Dobbs! Yes, I believe the social harmony from allowing these questions to be decided democratically outweighs individual "rights." What about Ireland? Abortion was illegal in Ireland until 2018, and then it was put to the public for vote in a referendum. In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn Ireland's abortion ban (though it did find a due process violation with respect to the lack of procedures for qualifying for a pre-existing exception for life-threatening conditions). That's how the law works in civilized democracies. People make decisions on social issues, not judges.
      - browserman 2y ago
        How do feel about Brown v Board?