That sounds like part of the problem. Why should we even know the position of a justice on a topic like that? At best making opinions public just leads to recusing in some cases. At worst it leads to the kind of distrust in the judiciary we're experiencing now.
It becomes an issue if the justice writes this misunderstanding of the research into their opinion. I think the researcher is merely trying to get their story out ahead of that possibility, just in case.
Here's a list of what compels people to complain of judicial activism:
1. They disagree with a court decision.
I don't think it makes a measurable difference whether he draws a huge target on his back or not.
I would hope as a professional judge he would have a strong interest in law. Naturally he'll have opinions about it, whether he talks to the press after the case is over or not. So long as the written court opinion cites the law as it is now, I actually like having personal opinion added later.
Professionally, judges have to think about what harms people and what serves their interests. There's no way a human judge could avoid having this spill over into thinking how laws harm people and serve their interests.
Given a situation where a person (who might have been speaking on a protected topic like the administration of justice) said something the judge felt threatened by, the fact-finding and judgement should not have been left to that judge. A different judge, though no less prone to an emotional rather than rational response due to similarity of circumstances, would give the results a little more credibility.
No, that's not his position. His position is probably this: Judges are constrained by case load and the limits of the law - so even without an agenda outcomes are often bad. Add to that their reliance on 3rd parties and the attorneys and it goes from bad to worse.
I agree, and I kind of have a problem with it. Regardless of my thoughts about this case and others like it, the judge is supposed to be objective; he sure sounds like he's already biased against the plaintiff.
I don't know about that. If a justice is to make judgements that make sense the participants in a society then it would help if they themselves are aware of the status quo of that society. Otherwise their judgments may be right in some philosophical sense but will alienate people from the law in a way that does tremendous damage.
Judgments should not only be 'right' they should make 'sense', and some of the language in the decisions indicates that not all of them are in touch with the world as we know it to the extent that they should be.
I think it's pretty scary. The judge is asking it to make judgment calls.
> “Has the jurisprudence of the constitutional court made favorable decisions in similar cases?”
Whether or not similar rulings are "favorable" could contain a lot of nuance.
> It feels awfully inefficient.
Good? I think it's important for a judge to have a comprehensive understanding of the current case and all relevant precedents. If they're going to use ChatGPT to inform their opinion, they might as well let it make the ruling.
Imagine if the judge had another person that's not a lawyer read the relevant info and provide a summary / opinion. People would be appalled.
The judges aren't forced to make every case public. There are clear guidelines for when not to, where otherwise there are requirements to clarify the reasons. The judges aren't following the guidelines, because there's no repercussions and it makes their job easier.
That needs to change. And also the judges are supposed to weigh up the secrecy vs public interest, which is clearly not happening.
It applies even more outside of a courtroom. Most people get information via very agenda-driven news articles, and not having "making sense of weird situations" as their day job, they're even more likely to be misled than judges.
At least a court has lots of rules built in to try and provide some amount of fairness to both sides in a debate. The political and public sphere has no such rules, making it even more vulnerable to such railroading.
The problem here is lack of evidence and availability bias makes the decision process look terrible, without giving us enough evidence to be confident about that conclusion.
If a decision is appealed and reversed, would we hear about it? If the employee did a proper review and concluded that, yeah, it's legit, for reasons we would agree with, how would we know from only hearing the other side of the story?
This is why actual judicial systems are more transparent. Cases are tried mostly in public. Judges write justifications for their decisions. This allows us on the outside to review what they're doing and understand how it works.
But, the downside is that it's slow, expensive, and there is rarely any privacy.
They surely would. However we generally try to treat being too close to a topic emotionally as a reason to distance someone from it, not to value their opinion more.
Judges don't recuse themselves because someone they know wasn't involved in the case.
This makes little sense. Certainly the court itself should be able to find some expert which weighs in on the matter as a third-party instead of letting the sides involved spin their own stories? Would that be complicated?
The SC isn't supposed to concern itself with justice, that's a sticky matter for the legislators. Their job is to make sure that the legislators followed rules (wrote laws which do not contradict the constitution) and that those laws are properly applied.
Yes, every individual judge has their own skills and opinions and as such, sees the legal question slightly differently, and has different legal interests and thus knows some law more than other. We have a nine as a balance between not having enough diverse backgrounds such that we might be missing the critical input some day weighed against the group being to big to be convenient.
> why do we end up with split votes that so often fall down partisan lines?
People are flawed. Let's say some injustice caused you to get into law. You're likely going to be more familiar with that area, and more sensitive to its harms, than another judge. You may not be voting your ideology, you may be there (as a justice) because of your ideology, and you may have your honest beliefs because of your unique experiences.
I often read opinions I don't agree with, but I can see where the justice just had a different life than me and sees things differently.
> Supreme Court opinions literally called opinions, if they are apparently objective?
The only use of objectivity in this thread is yours. But if someone did use that phrasing, they'd mean that the justices should decide the same on the same issue, no matter if it helps a nazi or a nun. Justice is supposed to be blind.
Agreed that judges are not infallible, and we must keep watch, both in appointments being made and the judgements they make. That's why the Constitution is structured the way it is. It's important that we continue to do so, particularly now.
I also trust, unless proven otherwise, that these judges have studied the law and are acting in good faith, both as arbiters of justice and as American citizens. These aren't isolated, unique cases. On the whole, I would defer to them over my own opinion, as I would for many experts. And, without additional information about you, I'd defer to their opinion over yours, as I'd expect you to, in the same situation, as well.
I don't believe that there is some conspiracy across all of these judges and justices to systematically deprive citizens of rights. You are free to believe otherwise. I do believe that assuming bad faith across the board is a recipe for the destruction of community, society, and government. Perhaps you believe we're already at that point. I don't believe we are, at least not yet.
The questions a justice asks can often be an indication of where they stand on an issue. It's a way for them to tell the other justices their beliefs. If Alito is spouting off misleading or incorrect facts, then this person should feel compelled to defend their work.
reply