3 ms·

And honestly, while we like to lump them into "conservative" and "liberal" camps for simplicity, it's easy to get the correlation wrong. Like anyone else, their

And honestly, while we like to lump them into "conservative" and "liberal" camps for simplicity, it's easy to get the correlation wrong. Like anyone else, their moral and legal philosophies might make them lean one way or another politically, not the other way around. Even for the most extremely political justices, to hear them expound on the legal principles of federalism or human rights is very fascinating. It's easy to forget that, while they are political appointees, they have to have fairly long careers as acting judges to even qualify for the appointments.

buildbot 2y ago
Amy Coney Barrett only served 3 years as a judge - that doesn't seem very long at all.
timemct 2y ago
Save for at least one current sitting Justice: Amy Coney Barrett. They only had ~3 years of experience being a judge, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (2017–2020), before being nominated to the Supreme Court. Yes, they have experience in other law related roles, however your comment explicitly stated, "...fairly long careers as acting judges...," so that is what I'm speaking to.
- legitster 2y ago
  Fair point!
OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
> It's easy to forget that, while they are political appointees, they have to have fairly long careers as acting judges to even qualify for the appointments. This is objectively false. There are no requirements like this and there have been several appointees throughout history without many, if any, qualifications for the role.
nonethewiser 2y ago
Liberal vs. conservative has always been the wrong take. The stronger dividing line is textualism vs pragmatism. In fact Scalia famously said this coming from a textualist perspective which I think most people can agree with even if they hate him: “ If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach.” This seems absolutely correct, but when is the last time ypu ever saw a commentator observe this? Critique has been reduced to “i dont like the effect so the interpretation of the law is wrong.” Put the other way, a fair observer must eventually say “i really hate the conclusion but they got it right.”
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  The country gave up on change through legislation a long time ago so now it's down to trying to sway the court.
- wing-_-nuts 2y ago
  >The stronger dividing line is textualism vs pragmatism. They should be doing what is right for the American people. There are clearly laws on the books today which infringe on individual freedoms (abortion), harm society as a whole (citizens united), etc. The 'justice system' is supposed to be the government branch protecting the little guy from powerful elites. I've not often seen that. I see the opposite. If the legal system won't deliver justice, well, people are going to take things into their own hands whether that's 'justice' or not. If you bury your child, and you see the people ultimately responsible get away with it, I'm not sure I could really blame them.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > The 'justice system' is supposed to be the government branch protecting the little guy from powerful elites The justice system. Not necessarily the courts. Our courts definitely weren’t designed to be a political body.
  - legitster 2y ago
    Strong but respectful disagree from me. Justice is supposed to be blind. And if right and wrong were so clear cut there would no need for democracy at all. The court is not a democratic institution and exists to uphold the textual rule of law as determined by lawmakers. If a pragmatic ruling by the court can circumvent a politically logjammed congress, so be it. But the courts deciding what is right or wrong for the American people is a very slippery slope that leads to disaster. And a court that just rules against the (existing) elite every time is a junta.

buildbot 2y ago

Amy Coney Barrett only served 3 years as a judge - that doesn't seem very long at all.

timemct 2y ago

Save for at least one current sitting Justice: Amy Coney Barrett. They only had ~3 years of experience being a judge, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (2017–2020), before being nominated to the Supreme Court. Yes, they have experience in other law related roles, however your comment explicitly stated, "...fairly long careers as acting judges...," so that is what I'm speaking to.

legitster 2y ago
Fair point!

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago

> It's easy to forget that, while they are political appointees, they have to have fairly long careers as acting judges to even qualify for the appointments. This is objectively false. There are no requirements like this and there have been several appointees throughout history without many, if any, qualifications for the role.

nonethewiser 2y ago

Liberal vs. conservative has always been the wrong take. The stronger dividing line is textualism vs pragmatism. In fact Scalia famously said this coming from a textualist perspective which I think most people can agree with even if they hate him: “ If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach.” This seems absolutely correct, but when is the last time ypu ever saw a commentator observe this? Critique has been reduced to “i dont like the effect so the interpretation of the law is wrong.” Put the other way, a fair observer must eventually say “i really hate the conclusion but they got it right.”

throwaway48476 2y ago
The country gave up on change through legislation a long time ago so now it's down to trying to sway the court.
wing-_-nuts 2y ago
>The stronger dividing line is textualism vs pragmatism. They should be doing what is right for the American people. There are clearly laws on the books today which infringe on individual freedoms (abortion), harm society as a whole (citizens united), etc. The 'justice system' is supposed to be the government branch protecting the little guy from powerful elites. I've not often seen that. I see the opposite. If the legal system won't deliver justice, well, people are going to take things into their own hands whether that's 'justice' or not. If you bury your child, and you see the people ultimately responsible get away with it, I'm not sure I could really blame them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > The 'justice system' is supposed to be the government branch protecting the little guy from powerful elites The justice system. Not necessarily the courts. Our courts definitely weren’t designed to be a political body.
- legitster 2y ago
  Strong but respectful disagree from me. Justice is supposed to be blind. And if right and wrong were so clear cut there would no need for democracy at all. The court is not a democratic institution and exists to uphold the textual rule of law as determined by lawmakers. If a pragmatic ruling by the court can circumvent a politically logjammed congress, so be it. But the courts deciding what is right or wrong for the American people is a very slippery slope that leads to disaster. And a court that just rules against the (existing) elite every time is a junta.