4 ms·

who says that conservative justices have no rhyme or reason? Everyone knows they work shamelessly to advance their conservative political goals.

• rayiner 2y ago
  What do you call Griswold, which found new constitutional rights in “emanations from penumbras” in the constitutional text, if not “shameless?” By contrast, you’re calling it “shameless” for the Court to decide that the judicial branch should be the final interpreter of statutes, not the executive branch. You’re literally engaging in Orwellian doublespeak.
• lolinder 2y ago
  That's the same kind of argument I'm talking about, though. If you just frame it as "to advance their conservative political goals" then you fail to fully understand this court and will continue to be surprised by what they decide. This court has more than once ruled in a direction that conservatives would not like because the letter of the law required them to do so. Those instances just fail to make headlines and draw ire on social media.
  • jhp123 2y ago
    continue to be surprised? I have not been surprised by this court whatsoever
    • TylerE 2y ago
      Yes, it's quite simple. Whatever ruling helps the powerful is the one they make. It's incredibly blatant regardless of recent (post 1980s) manufactured from whole cloth "originalism", which is in sharp contrast with the actual views of the founders who expected the constitution to be rapidly and frequently amended to account for new factors.
      • lolinder 2y ago
        > the founders who expected the constitution to be rapidly and frequently amended Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The Constitution spells out that any amendment requires first an agreement of 2/3s of both houses of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states. Even back when there were 13 states I'm having trouble imagining them setting it up like that if they were targeting rapid and frequent iteration. If that was their intention they obviously did a very bad job setting it up for that.