3 ms·

The court is clearly going in the direction of activism in the sense of abandoning major precedents that have been around for many decades. Abortion, fair shar

The court is clearly going in the direction of activism in the sense of abandoning major precedents that have been around for many decades. Abortion, fair share union dues, Chevron, Citizens United, gutting the Voting Rights Act (thousands of polling stations have been shut down in recent years), and this week effectively legalizing bribery of government officials. The combination of these and other precedents is ushering in a new era of intensifying regulatory capture and with the people effectively losing power. The label for what this is called is irrelevant. It’s the consequences of this that matter and the lower courts see where this court is heading and they will rule accordingly. These decisions have been extremely in terms of detriment to the country. This court will not be looked upon favorably in the future.

lolinder 2y ago
Did you look at the table linked by OP? What you're describing is definitely the meme that's been going around, but how much of the sense that this court is more activist than the last few is just the amplification of social media? OP's table pretty clearly shows that overturning well-established precedent is just what the Supreme Court does. Looking at the rulings in that table, the main difference that I see between this court and previous courts is that this is the first time that a conservative court has thrown caution to the wind and started overturning what they see as bad precedent. Typically conservative justices have held themselves to a standard that liberal justices did not, and the Trump era definitely ushered in a set of judges that were done with that double standard. I'm willing to have a conversation about the merits of the individual rulings (there are some I disagree with!), but that's a separate question from whether this court is doing something that hasn't already been the norm for a century or longer.
- skhunted 2y ago
  My comment had nothing to do with wether or not the Court is being more or less activist. It was about the consequences of some key rulings.
rayiner 2y ago
> Abortion A case ultimately rooted in the legal theory or “emanations from penumbras” in the Constitution. > fair share union dues Forcing government employees to pay dues to a private organization they disagree with politically. > Chevron Overturning an earlier case that had ruled in favor of an oil company. > Citizens United Held that making a political movie about Hilary Clinton was free speech. > gutting the Voting Rights Act Finding that Congress couldn’t impose different voting rights requirements on different states based on a 40 year old formula. > this week effectively legalizing bribery of government officials Overturned a conviction for accepting bribes in connection with an official act, where the jury was instructed that it was irrelevant whether the defendant had corrupt intent at the time of the official act. I don’t know what historians will say about the current Supreme Court. But historians (and journalists) are feelers (in the Meyers Briggs sense), not thinkers. They think in terms of human stories and impacts on people, rather than logical systems. Who cares what feelers think about legal precedents?
- skhunted 2y ago
  You are not engaging in a good fait discussion if you think Citizen's United was just allowing a movie to be made about Hilary Clinton and that it was truly about free speech. It's about the consequences of the rulings and what the ruling said. The consequence of Citizen's United have been very bad for politics. Since Citizen's United outside spending on federal elections has greatly increased as a percent of total spending. Super PAC spending has greatly increased. This ruling was not about free speech. > gutting the Voting Rights Act Finding that Congress couldn’t impose different voting rights requirements on different states based on a 40 year old formula. Another example of disingenuous discourse. Thousands of polling stations have closed in the south as a result of the ruling and those closure occurred in areas to disenfranchise black and other undesirable voters. The Voting Rights Act had become so commonly accepted that it passed Congress on its last passage almost without any nay votes. Even die hard conservatives were caught off guard by the courts ruling. You are not living in reality with these beliefs of yours.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Rayiner has written at length and persuasively about Citizen's United and is, on this issue, clearly engaging in good faith. You disagree with him, which is unsurprising, but not an indication of falsity on his part. If you feel like someone isn't discussing things in good faith with you, the right response is to stop discussing. Assume good faith https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lolinder 2y ago

Did you look at the table linked by OP? What you're describing is definitely the meme that's been going around, but how much of the sense that this court is more activist than the last few is just the amplification of social media? OP's table pretty clearly shows that overturning well-established precedent is just what the Supreme Court does. Looking at the rulings in that table, the main difference that I see between this court and previous courts is that this is the first time that a conservative court has thrown caution to the wind and started overturning what they see as bad precedent. Typically conservative justices have held themselves to a standard that liberal justices did not, and the Trump era definitely ushered in a set of judges that were done with that double standard. I'm willing to have a conversation about the merits of the individual rulings (there are some I disagree with!), but that's a separate question from whether this court is doing something that hasn't already been the norm for a century or longer.

skhunted 2y ago
My comment had nothing to do with wether or not the Court is being more or less activist. It was about the consequences of some key rulings.

rayiner 2y ago

> Abortion A case ultimately rooted in the legal theory or “emanations from penumbras” in the Constitution. > fair share union dues Forcing government employees to pay dues to a private organization they disagree with politically. > Chevron Overturning an earlier case that had ruled in favor of an oil company. > Citizens United Held that making a political movie about Hilary Clinton was free speech. > gutting the Voting Rights Act Finding that Congress couldn’t impose different voting rights requirements on different states based on a 40 year old formula. > this week effectively legalizing bribery of government officials Overturned a conviction for accepting bribes in connection with an official act, where the jury was instructed that it was irrelevant whether the defendant had corrupt intent at the time of the official act. I don’t know what historians will say about the current Supreme Court. But historians (and journalists) are feelers (in the Meyers Briggs sense), not thinkers. They think in terms of human stories and impacts on people, rather than logical systems. Who cares what feelers think about legal precedents?

skhunted 2y ago
You are not engaging in a good fait discussion if you think Citizen's United was just allowing a movie to be made about Hilary Clinton and that it was truly about free speech. It's about the consequences of the rulings and what the ruling said. The consequence of Citizen's United have been very bad for politics. Since Citizen's United outside spending on federal elections has greatly increased as a percent of total spending. Super PAC spending has greatly increased. This ruling was not about free speech. > gutting the Voting Rights Act Finding that Congress couldn’t impose different voting rights requirements on different states based on a 40 year old formula. Another example of disingenuous discourse. Thousands of polling stations have closed in the south as a result of the ruling and those closure occurred in areas to disenfranchise black and other undesirable voters. The Voting Rights Act had become so commonly accepted that it passed Congress on its last passage almost without any nay votes. Even die hard conservatives were caught off guard by the courts ruling. You are not living in reality with these beliefs of yours.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Rayiner has written at length and persuasively about Citizen's United and is, on this issue, clearly engaging in good faith. You disagree with him, which is unsurprising, but not an indication of falsity on his part. If you feel like someone isn't discussing things in good faith with you, the right response is to stop discussing. Assume good faith https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html