I strongly disagree.
I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs:
In one session they’ve removed the ability to sue over Miranda rights, stricken down a fifty year precedent and told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act.
I don’t doubt that you will claim that these actions are the logical course of originalism in its purest form, but I find it judicial activism of an obtuse society-wrecking despicable sort.
They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason.
There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy.
The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement.
"Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.
It's interesting you say these things because it's exactly how the right views the left, and it's exactly what they say about them! Just an observation, and an interesting one.
> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
This is not at all true. Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion.
While religion may influence worldview, the fundamental abortion question comes down to the fact that the Constitution does not define when a person becomes a Person. I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers.
This EPA decision, however, I think is wrong, because the major question doctrine cannot be consistently applied and is constitutionally baseless so far as I can tell.
Edit: forgot to write:
> There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring.
I imagine everyone thinks this about some things. I agree with your assessments of bad precedents above, but conservatives aren't the only ones that do this. FDR threatened to pack the court to get his way with the New Deal and the Wager Act, which included things I believe are unconstitutional such as Social Security, Minimum Wage, Medicare, etc.
You cannot realistically expect 21st century America to agree with you.
If the constitution DID oppose a minimum wage, and it doesn’t, I would say ditch the constitution. Common sense.
Thing is, all this legalese mumbo-jumbo is a racket and a scam. The constitution is written in plain English in a rather common vernacular.
So-called “conservatives” have hijacked a silly notion of knowing the original intentions of the founding fathers and delivering an unbiased truthful channeling of that into a winning strategy.
To the rest of us it’s rather obviously a scam.
>So-called “conservatives” have hijacked a silly notion of knowing the original intentions of the founding fathers and delivering an unbiased truthful channeling of that into a winning strategy. To the rest of us it’s rather obviously a scam.
These same justices will toss contradictory evidence whenever it is at odds with their goals.
>It's interesting you say these things because it's exactly how the right views the left, and it's exactly what they say about them! Just an observation, and an interesting one.
This is not an interesting observation but a disingenuously naive hot take straight from right wing reactionaries that conveniently or ignorantly ignores reality and the history of radical theological propaganda that’s being crafted by conservative think tanks and disseminated by their media orgs in a campaign to manufacture consent and shift public opinion. This particular tactic is called projection.
>>projection:
>>Psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside". It forms the basis of empathy by the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's subjective world.
>I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers.
Then abortion is plainly protected by the ninth, tenth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. One must use their ideological or theological beliefs as renegade dogma in order to reject the protection afforded by these amendments.
> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
I'm not sure why you would say that. The late Justice Ginsberg was a frequent critic of Roe as case law (despite being an ardent advocate of abortion) and thought the fundamental reasoning used in Roe was defective. [0] Roe was roundly criticized from jurists from both the left and the right on a number of fronts. It was bad law that ruled broadly on a highly divisive topic. Some folks strongly agreed with the outcome, so it became a third rail. Overturning precedents like Roe, while controversial, is healthy and gives us the opportunity to replace it with something on more firm legal footing.
Per the topic of this particular judgment, they agreed to hear a challenge to a non-law!
The Obama era Clean Power Act is not law!
This court went out of their way to steal authority thst congress specifically placed in the EPA and based their judgement of overreach on a non-law proposed bill from over a decade ago.
I allege that they are corruptly serving the Federalist Society agenda and deliberately dismantling environmental regulatory bodies for clear goals the Federalist Society maintains
And yet, in two of the examples given - the one under discussion, and the NY state concealed carry law - they took away authority from congress and a state respectively.
I would greatly disagree that it is up to the voters. It is only up to the representatives. Only states with binding resolution allows for voters to enact policies while major of states only allow representatives. There are numerous stances where the people fully support a policy while the major of representatives reject the policy and adhere to their political party and group think. If the voters had the power then we should be able to override legislation that the the current representatives supporting. I hear it all the time with representatives, we need the power to override the Governor, but never hear the people need the power to override the representatives and or Governor. Voting in new representatives has no correlation to enacting polices we the people want and demand.
United States of America is currently legislatively oppressed.
> I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs
Your disagreement doesn't have any effect on reality.
Care to back up your claims with actual evidence?
> stricken down a fifty year precedent
Is it somehow bad to strike down old precedents, regardless of content?
> told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act
Is it somehow bad to tell US states that they can't do things that would violate the US constitution, which is explicitly meant to apply to all states?
> obtuse society-wrecking
Translation: "these rulings don't agree with my political positions" (so I'm going to use language that conceals my preference to suggest that they're bad).
> They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
Not a constructive addition to the conversation, smells of emotional manipulation.
They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
reply