5 ms·

Now if only SCOTUS could still be trusted to actually do what's right by the spirit of the law for the good of the people.

mfer 2y ago
The court isn't tasked with doing what right. Who defines what's "right"? The court is tasked with judging based on the laws at hand. If those laws are flawed or wrong but legal, it's upon congress to change the laws rather than the courts to decide right or wrong. The court should be focused on legal or illegal. This is how the separation of powers work in the US. When laws are "broken" we should be looking at congress.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  I think we can forgive anyone who expresses skepticism about the current court's adherence to the spirit and even the letter of the law after it created presidential immunity out of thin air in Trump v. United States, both because it ran afoul of the Supreme Court's tradition of issuing narrow rulings but also because there's literally nothing in the constitution about executive immunity. As there exists a grant of immunity for legislators (Article I, Section 6), it's clear the framers understood the concept but chose to exclude it for the president. It's like the current court took a look at all the vitriol over Citizens United being one of the worst decisions in history and went "hold my beer". That said, the present issue of TikTok seems like an open-and-shut first amendment case, regardless whether it is ultimately a tool for influence operations by a hostile foreign power. The price we pay for freedom of speech is that it enables bad faith actors as well.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    It doesn't though: one can fully argue that tik tok is one of several platforms through which people can express themselves, which means no one's rights are being taken away by shutting down tik-tok. It would be an incredibly bad-faith decision, but watch them make it anyway. Similarly, tik tok can't argue that they're press, even if some of their users might use the platform as a news and news commentary outlet. Again, shutting down the platform doesn't prevent those folks from continuing to do so on another platform. There's, unfortunately, nothing open-and-shut about this case. Especially with a supreme court that seems quite keen on backing up the establishment.
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  Fun fact: no. You're thinking of the regular courts. Unlike the regular courts, the supreme court specifically has the power to just go "nope, this law is now void" if they deem it unconstitutional, and fun fact: that constitution sure is open to interpretation, hoo boy. Imagine if a corrupt justice was allowed to just keep on ruling, that sure would make for a fair and just system. Like say someone who had to rule on cases involving their friends who bought them millions of dollars in gifts and instead of recusing themselves, take the case and rule in their friends' favor. And no way for the people to intervene. SCOTUS has serious problems.
mrandish 2y ago
Not to digress off-topic but as a long-time SCOTUS watcher and reader of opinions and dissents, I think it's worth highlighting that "the spirit of the law" and "for the good of the people" are highly subjective things on which reasonable people often disagree. Those broad concepts have in earlier eras been cited by supreme court justices to extend or limit laws instead of strictly interpreting what's written, including supporting slavery, denying civil rights and blocking women voting. SCOTUS was created to interpret the wording of the laws the legislative branch passes and to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of citizens as written in the constitution. Changing the purpose of the court to include concepts like justices choosing what is in "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people" as opposed to what the people's elected representatives actually wrote and voted for is a slippery slope. It might sound good but only if the majority of justices will always make subjective judgements you agree with. Those of us who disagree with some justices' opinions should want to hard limit SCOTUS to strict interpretation of laws as written and not including their personal beliefs on what might be "for the good of the people."
- archagon 2y ago
  Except some members of the SCOTUS are quite blatantly corrupt: https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-us-supreme-court/ https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-...
  - mrandish 2y ago
    I haven't looked into those allegations myself but, if they're true, it strongly supports my belief the role of supreme court justices should be limited to strict interpretation of legislation as passed by our elected representatives and the constitution as written. While it's impossible to eliminate all subjective interpretation from the role of SCOTUS justices, the last thing we should want is any more latitude for injecting personal opinion or broad construction based on vague ideals like "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people".
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
stronglikedan 2y ago
They've been doing a great job for the last few years, so I don't expect them to stop now.

mfer 2y ago

The court isn't tasked with doing what right. Who defines what's "right"? The court is tasked with judging based on the laws at hand. If those laws are flawed or wrong but legal, it's upon congress to change the laws rather than the courts to decide right or wrong. The court should be focused on legal or illegal. This is how the separation of powers work in the US. When laws are "broken" we should be looking at congress.

atmavatar 2y ago
I think we can forgive anyone who expresses skepticism about the current court's adherence to the spirit and even the letter of the law after it created presidential immunity out of thin air in Trump v. United States, both because it ran afoul of the Supreme Court's tradition of issuing narrow rulings but also because there's literally nothing in the constitution about executive immunity. As there exists a grant of immunity for legislators (Article I, Section 6), it's clear the framers understood the concept but chose to exclude it for the president. It's like the current court took a look at all the vitriol over Citizens United being one of the worst decisions in history and went "hold my beer". That said, the present issue of TikTok seems like an open-and-shut first amendment case, regardless whether it is ultimately a tool for influence operations by a hostile foreign power. The price we pay for freedom of speech is that it enables bad faith actors as well.
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  It doesn't though: one can fully argue that tik tok is one of several platforms through which people can express themselves, which means no one's rights are being taken away by shutting down tik-tok. It would be an incredibly bad-faith decision, but watch them make it anyway. Similarly, tik tok can't argue that they're press, even if some of their users might use the platform as a news and news commentary outlet. Again, shutting down the platform doesn't prevent those folks from continuing to do so on another platform. There's, unfortunately, nothing open-and-shut about this case. Especially with a supreme court that seems quite keen on backing up the establishment.
TheRealPomax 2y ago
Fun fact: no. You're thinking of the regular courts. Unlike the regular courts, the supreme court specifically has the power to just go "nope, this law is now void" if they deem it unconstitutional, and fun fact: that constitution sure is open to interpretation, hoo boy. Imagine if a corrupt justice was allowed to just keep on ruling, that sure would make for a fair and just system. Like say someone who had to rule on cases involving their friends who bought them millions of dollars in gifts and instead of recusing themselves, take the case and rule in their friends' favor. And no way for the people to intervene. SCOTUS has serious problems.

mrandish 2y ago

Not to digress off-topic but as a long-time SCOTUS watcher and reader of opinions and dissents, I think it's worth highlighting that "the spirit of the law" and "for the good of the people" are highly subjective things on which reasonable people often disagree. Those broad concepts have in earlier eras been cited by supreme court justices to extend or limit laws instead of strictly interpreting what's written, including supporting slavery, denying civil rights and blocking women voting. SCOTUS was created to interpret the wording of the laws the legislative branch passes and to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of citizens as written in the constitution. Changing the purpose of the court to include concepts like justices choosing what is in "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people" as opposed to what the people's elected representatives actually wrote and voted for is a slippery slope. It might sound good but only if the majority of justices will always make subjective judgements you agree with. Those of us who disagree with some justices' opinions should want to hard limit SCOTUS to strict interpretation of laws as written and not including their personal beliefs on what might be "for the good of the people."

archagon 2y ago
Except some members of the SCOTUS are quite blatantly corrupt: https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-us-supreme-court/ https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-...
- mrandish 2y ago
  I haven't looked into those allegations myself but, if they're true, it strongly supports my belief the role of supreme court justices should be limited to strict interpretation of legislation as passed by our elected representatives and the constitution as written. While it's impossible to eliminate all subjective interpretation from the role of SCOTUS justices, the last thing we should want is any more latitude for injecting personal opinion or broad construction based on vague ideals like "the spirit of the law" or "for the good of the people".
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

stronglikedan 2y ago

They've been doing a great job for the last few years, so I don't expect them to stop now.