3 ms·
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 stri
by 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 agoWhat 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.