3 ms·

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

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
    What exists to stop SCOTUS from being as subjective as they like? They could theoretically being impeached by congress, but how could that happen if the majority of the congress share and supports the subjective interpretations of those judges? And what if those interpretations, like rulings on gerrymandering and rules around voting, then further ensure congress maintains that majority? Your belief of limiting SCOTUS is good, but the reality is they have no limits. They could literally make any interpretation as wild as they want and as long as the interpretation aligns with even the slimmest majority of the house, it stands as the law of the land.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    "I haven't looked into those allegations" when it's been all over the news somewhat undermines the whole claim of authority.

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
  What exists to stop SCOTUS from being as subjective as they like? They could theoretically being impeached by congress, but how could that happen if the majority of the congress share and supports the subjective interpretations of those judges? And what if those interpretations, like rulings on gerrymandering and rules around voting, then further ensure congress maintains that majority? Your belief of limiting SCOTUS is good, but the reality is they have no limits. They could literally make any interpretation as wild as they want and as long as the interpretation aligns with even the slimmest majority of the house, it stands as the law of the land.
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  "I haven't looked into those allegations" when it's been all over the news somewhat undermines the whole claim of authority.