3 ms·

before when I was naive - I thoughts courts were impartial or I believed they were. but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge

by dzonga 2y ago

before when I was naive - I thoughts courts were impartial or I believed they were. but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge or the judge's personal beliefs.

packetlost 2y ago
That's pretty much always been the case, but it has never been more blatant than now.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Eh, it was. The Lochner era was about the same as it is today. It was also arguably the same during the Warren court. The main thing that has changed is this court has decided that past rulings do not matter. That's what is going to really cause a lot of chaos in the courts as time goes on.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    I suspect there are other cases where you would think the court overturning precedent was a good thing.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      Prior to this court, the last time the court overturned precedent was Brown v Board of education. Historically the court has pretty much never overturned precedent. That's new with this court.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        Either overturning precedent is acceptable or it isn't. It can't be acceptable but only when I agree with it.
        cogman10 2y ago
        That's binary thinking which I reject. Something isn't always good or always wrong. Overturning precedent may be the right thing to do, it isn't always right. This court's excessive overturning of precedent is Judicial activism that isn't going to be good and in particular is attacking individual liberties. One major issue with making everything a jump ball is lower courts can no longer rely on precedent to make rulings. It means all lower courts get to make decisions based on politics and, who knows, the supreme court might uphold their whims in the best case. It means that when you go to court or anyone else, you cannot have a reasonable guess at what outcome can be achieved which bloats the entire Judicial system for everyone. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definition...
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        You can learn more about binary thinking in a logic course.
      - telotortium 2y ago
        To provide just one counterexample to this obviously false claim, South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018)[1] directly overturned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota (1992)[2], which had ruled that mail order (including online) purchases were not subject to sales tax unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. South Dakota v. Wayfair was a 5-4 decision, but not on partisan lines. You can see several more cases here: https://chatgpt.com/share/676316b1-9be0-8008-9586-6181324b113d https://chatgpt.com/share/676316b1-9be0-8008-9586-6181324b11... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota
        cogman10 2y ago
        That was this court, the Roberts Court. And further, the 5 in favor was the conservative wing of the supreme court +Ginsberg -Roberts. The reason Roberts dissented was Stare decisis. Notice that from your chatgpt query, the majority of the cases were from 201X and beyond. We are now at the point where nearly yearly we are seeing prior precedent overturned. Prior to that it was something that happened maybe once per decade.
- oremolten 2y ago
  I'd argue its even less blatant today it just appears more blatant because you can see the happenings on the other side of the country in an instant on your personal cell phone. As can anyone else.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Courts have their own politics which usually exist on a different spectrum than cable news politics. Recently the courts have gained more power through congressional dysfunction. If congress doesn't like how the court interprets a law they can just amend it.
mfer 2y ago
In addition to politics is how they interpret the job of being a judge. Is it to judge a case on the laws that are written given the context they were written in? Is it to interpret laws based on a different context? This leads to different outcomes.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Yes it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Originalism is a school of judicial philosophy. It is not the only one, and has fallen in and out of favor over time.
kzrdude 2y ago
The NPR podcast series More Perfect is quite interesting, about this, they should have an episode called 'The Political Thicket' or something like that.
throw16180339 2y ago
They're also available for purchase by bribing the justices, as seen with Clarence Thomas. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un... I don't see any reason to regards the court's verdicts as legitimate, especially since they invented the immunity ruling out of whole cloth.

by dzonga 2y ago

before when I was naive - I thoughts courts were impartial or I believed they were. but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge or the judge's personal beliefs.

packetlost 2y ago

That's pretty much always been the case, but it has never been more blatant than now.

cogman10 2y ago
Eh, it was. The Lochner era was about the same as it is today. It was also arguably the same during the Warren court. The main thing that has changed is this court has decided that past rulings do not matter. That's what is going to really cause a lot of chaos in the courts as time goes on.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  I suspect there are other cases where you would think the court overturning precedent was a good thing.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Prior to this court, the last time the court overturned precedent was Brown v Board of education. Historically the court has pretty much never overturned precedent. That's new with this court.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Either overturning precedent is acceptable or it isn't. It can't be acceptable but only when I agree with it.
      - cogman10 2y ago
        That's binary thinking which I reject. Something isn't always good or always wrong. Overturning precedent may be the right thing to do, it isn't always right. This court's excessive overturning of precedent is Judicial activism that isn't going to be good and in particular is attacking individual liberties. One major issue with making everything a jump ball is lower courts can no longer rely on precedent to make rulings. It means all lower courts get to make decisions based on politics and, who knows, the supreme court might uphold their whims in the best case. It means that when you go to court or anyone else, you cannot have a reasonable guess at what outcome can be achieved which bloats the entire Judicial system for everyone. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definition...
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        You can learn more about binary thinking in a logic course.
    - telotortium 2y ago
      To provide just one counterexample to this obviously false claim, South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018)[1] directly overturned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota (1992)[2], which had ruled that mail order (including online) purchases were not subject to sales tax unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. South Dakota v. Wayfair was a 5-4 decision, but not on partisan lines. You can see several more cases here: https://chatgpt.com/share/676316b1-9be0-8008-9586-6181324b113d https://chatgpt.com/share/676316b1-9be0-8008-9586-6181324b11... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota
      - cogman10 2y ago
        That was this court, the Roberts Court. And further, the 5 in favor was the conservative wing of the supreme court +Ginsberg -Roberts. The reason Roberts dissented was Stare decisis. Notice that from your chatgpt query, the majority of the cases were from 201X and beyond. We are now at the point where nearly yearly we are seeing prior precedent overturned. Prior to that it was something that happened maybe once per decade.
oremolten 2y ago
I'd argue its even less blatant today it just appears more blatant because you can see the happenings on the other side of the country in an instant on your personal cell phone. As can anyone else.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Courts have their own politics which usually exist on a different spectrum than cable news politics. Recently the courts have gained more power through congressional dysfunction. If congress doesn't like how the court interprets a law they can just amend it.

mfer 2y ago

In addition to politics is how they interpret the job of being a judge. Is it to judge a case on the laws that are written given the context they were written in? Is it to interpret laws based on a different context? This leads to different outcomes.

throwaway48476 2y ago
Yes it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Originalism is a school of judicial philosophy. It is not the only one, and has fallen in and out of favor over time.

kzrdude 2y ago

The NPR podcast series More Perfect is quite interesting, about this, they should have an episode called 'The Political Thicket' or something like that.

throw16180339 2y ago

They're also available for purchase by bribing the justices, as seen with Clarence Thomas. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un... I don't see any reason to regards the court's verdicts as legitimate, especially since they invented the immunity ruling out of whole cloth.