Red Mosquito

--- wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:

4/5 wrote:I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

dimejinky99 wrote: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.

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

Bi_3 wrote:

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

Has any president appointed 3 SCOTUS judges in their first term?

Simple Torture wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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

Has any president appointed 3 SCOTUS judges in their first term?

Nixon appointed 4 in his first term, I believe.

simple schoolboy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote: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?

doug rr wrote:how many managers did steinbrenner appoint?

96583UP wrote:can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in

doug rr wrote:dry aged ribs

96583UP wrote:why does this matter again?

i'm not being sarcastic i just don't care to do the google research myself this time

Green Habit wrote:This is really good news to hear this.