The Supreme Court

[LoathedVermin72]

Then he probably shouldn’t be on the SC huh

Use this one weird trick to make your ideologocal opponent unfit for SCOTUS.

Not the point but nice joke attempt

[96583UP]

just because one super dubious accuser appears to be false doesn't mean that the two more credible ones are

i don't want to rehash the whole last 60 days but it's not just the penis-related issues that make him an embarrassment to this country

it's his terrible haircut

[simple schoolboy]

Then he probably shouldn’t be on the SC huh

Use this one weird trick to make your ideologocal opponent unfit for SCOTUS.

Not the point but nice joke attempt

Would you care to elaborate on this?

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[bart]

man she seemed so spry

[4/5]

this is concerning

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... r_Breaking

Oh man.

[B]

One of the sweet things that happened yesterday, was the NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan). One democrat ran against two republicans and won. Now NC has a liberal leaning supreme court.

[---]

NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan)

I fail to see how this is in any way positive.

[dimejinky99]

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

[4/5]

I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

[B]

NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan)

I fail to see how this is in any way positive.

What's positive is that it backfired on them. They figured the racists hard working Americans that occupy most of my state were accidentally voting for liberal judges, so they labelled them so everyone would know who to vote for. But the first election saw two Republicans split the vote in a competition with a Democrat, so they elected a Democrat onto the court.

[dimejinky99]

I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

[4/5]

I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.

[dimejinky99]

I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.

So that’s where being given the nod for the job by a president with personal interests or party policies comes in and rigs it for their own then right?

That whole system flat out sucks

[4/5]

Getting the job is the political part, yes. Once they have the job it isn't supposed to be political anymore. Not overtly, at least.

[BurtReynolds]

I wonder how they are gonna rule with this civil asset forfeiture thing later this month.

[bune]

Probably expand it because why the hell not.

[BurtReynolds]

Probably.

But maybe I can get my grandpappy's compound back from the feds.

[B]

Jesus, my phone actually notified me about RBG's fall. She needs to stop fucking around!

[---]

I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.

So that’s where being given the nod for the job by a president with personal interests or party policies comes in and rigs it for their own then right?

That whole system flat out sucks

The system is just fine. There are both horizontal (the legislative and executive branches) and vertical (competing claims to jurisdictional supremacy) checks on the judicial branch that continue to work well enough, though certainly not as optimally as some might prefer.

Following nomination, all SCOTUS nominees have to be confirmed by a majority in the Senate. This process has become nakedly partisan in a way that just wasn't the case until about thirty years ago. Antonin Scalia, paragon of the right's more constrained and "originalist" method of Constitutional interpretation, was confirmed 98-0 in 1986. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paragon of the left's more expansive and "purposivist" method of Constitutional interpretation, was confirmed 96-3 in 1993.