lollol
12hr ago
Sometimes agreeing with red judges on small issues or non-partisan issues does not mean they are unbiased. You don’t need to make up the law in every case to be a partisan hack.
So because you can't win, and because you feel hurt that "the other guys did it first" (which btw is debatable really) so you want to feel justified loading your own partisan hacks on the court?
This is akin to saying El Chapo is a good guy because he’s a good father.
There are always differences in degrees. And that's just a bad analogy in general. Being a good father is some evidence of being a good guy, but so is being a drug kingpin, but those two things live in different moral categories and can be mutually exclusive. When I say a judge sometimes agrees with the other side, that is not unrelated to the question of judicial bias. It is at least some evidence about how the judge has less or more bias.
If you’re going to accuse me of being biased then atleast show me a case where a conservative judge ruled in a conservative way contra the law? Hopefully they do that partially in the birthright case but I have my doubts.
"Contra the law" is doing a lot of work. It's constitutional law, who would say they are giving an opinion against the law? Again, the one who wins will "defines" what the law means (at least until it's reversed)(and then maybe reversed again). If you take "affirmative action" as your "contra the law", damn liberals are going to cry foul about "Bush v Gore" forever. You get to set the goalpost and choose what's right based on your criteria. That's already legislating from your own personal bench.
I am not going to justify lying. No it is not better when judges lie to the public. If the are acting as Senators I would rather they just say I have power and I’m fucking you than claim some moral high ground that they wrote a 100 page essay to say their not fucking me.
Look man, the liberals can just say the same thing about you in reversed. From my perspective, the red judges are lying about "originalism" and "textualism" anyway. And certainly from the perspective of the blues, the red judges are also claiming "some moral high ground that they wrote a 100 page essay to say their not fucking [the blues]". Your accusation of interpretive word games flow both ways. Make the law and constitution less ambiguous and justices won't be able to interpret their way out of ambiguities.
I respect the judge who said the first amendment doesn’t apply in her courtroom. Pure I have power. I get to choose the rules. I don’t give a shit about the constitution and you’re going to jail. It’s honest. No 100 page opinion why she’s doing good work. Just pure it’s the state of NY and I win and you lose here.
Ok, I see, so you're more angry at what you call "lying". You rather have people give it to you in simple terms you understand "I like this so I rule in its favor, I don't like this so I rule against its favor".
I will now step back from my motte of "I really would rather people bother to lie than to not lie at all" because that was bad on my part to lead down this confusing conversation. I will step back to the bailey of "enough people believe in a lie then it becomes truth (and maybe even law)". You can load all the partisan hacks you want to get the short term rulings you want, but you definitely won't win the hearts and minds of people long term. And they will get their freedom and powers back at some point, and then what you achieved will be gone as well. And thankfully within the system of the US, this means the pendulum swings faster.
And look, what I said above stands for the blues too you know. I'm sure from your perspective the partisan hacks of the blues made plenty of short term disastrous rulings that need reversed.
The real hard work is to make laws that more and more agree with and unambiguous for judges to rule with, which means debate, which means opinions, which mean rulings that get reversed. Wow life is messy, who knew.
lollol
18hr ago
First. Your side doesn’t even pretend they are NOT legislating from the bench. It’s why they use terms like “Living Constitution” or nominate a wise Latina. They aren’t even pretending that they are not legislating from the bench.
They clearly do at least lie and try to stay consistent and adhere to the text. Kagan famously says "We are all originalists now". Sotomayor has a longer track record of being further left of the court's median center so I take her as an example, but even for her sometimes there are weird results like Michigan v. Bryant or Sykes v. United States or Gamble v. United States or Snyder v. Phelps, etc. (As an aside, found that Ginsburg and Scalia likes to dissent these cases, not together, but both would dissent). Cases like these are especially what I mean when Justices' jurisprudence can and sometimes bring them to weird places as long as they're consistent in their theories. I'm going to hedge here that I'm at best an amateur reader of the law but when a liberal justice joins the like of Alito or Thomas, that should be signal that blue judges are less hacks than you think they are.
Whether the right has legislated from the bench I can only think of times when the legislated in the lefts direction like Sandra OCconnor supporting affirmative action as a temporary measure for 20 years despite being unconstitutional.
When red judges reach blue outcomes you count as legislating for the left. When blue judges reach blue outcomes, you count as "legislating from the bench". When blue judges reach red outcomes (like I pointed out above) you consider that "applying the law". When red judges reach red outcomes you also consider that "applying the law". You've essentially already categorized the things you agree with as right and the things you don't as wrong.
Just like the blue extremists you rail so hard against, since you both didn't write better laws that twists and ties the hands of judges into making clear verdicts, you both now focus on stacking the deck and just get to the win without having to go through the hard problem of doing the actual persuading and uniting and legislating.
I don’t believe in lying. It’s a cancer. Exception being for politeness telling your aunt she looks good.
Well yes, I was just pointing out the difference when people, of any stripes, don't even bother to lie vs when they still do. Of course then there is the difference between bother to lie vs believing the lie. Then there is the difference between a lie and a truth. There is a whole spectrum of reality there.
lollol
1d ago
I'm not sure, blacks are more religious, more anti-LGBT, there is certainly a strong foundation in which they could be the core of the right. Anyway, what @Skibboleth was saying is to explain why black people moves more generally as a voting bloc instead of splintering.
lollol
1d ago
And going back to my hometown, if you were caught by a neighbor using EBT you'd be socially ostracized, the rare section 8 housing person would not be invited to block parties.
Maybe I am dumb, so these people are on SNAP or something and they're poor so it's automatically assumed they are leeches on society and must be shun?
lollol
1d ago
Just as you can come up with countless sources and examples where the people you would call living constitutionalism adherents twist and interpret the law that besmirch their professed theory, I think I can also find countless sources and examples where the people I would call originalist adherents twist and interpret the law that besmirch their professed theory. I'm not sure why you think your side are "guardians of constraint and defenders against legislating from the bench" and that somehow my side "shot first" and therefore you feel justified in throwing the rules of the game. Don't use us as an excuse.
From my perspective, as society polarizes, the rules breakdown. Both sides feel bitter from transgressions of the others and whole swathes of people like you want to just flip the game and start with something new. What I worry about is that in the zeal and rush of grabbing power, boots are pressed on human faces. The real hard work, and real peaceful solution, is to still be at the table and keep debating and arguing.
Anyway, on the other hand, obviously you're right. The Supreme Court has always been just a different level of political voting. In a way, the makeup of the court represents what the people must have wanted at some point, just several time removes. To me that's fine, they are the best society could agree with at that particular moment in time. And hopefully they are good jurists who can guide and constrain government from overstepping.
And look, I'm not even saying originalism is wrong. From my perspective, assuming democracy survives, if all judges are always all originalists and they are actually adhering to straight and narrow originalism, guess what, the people would organize and vote and make sure laws are written in such a way that originalists can't refute the intention of the laws. Or yes, in the current system, they vote in legislators who would not appoint originalist judges. And the pendulum swings and it goes on and on.
I can even tell you a bad example on my side of the above. Look at this quote by a recent case in NYC "I believe the facts in front of me shows that this defendant poses a significant danger to society,’ said Judge Indira Khan. ‘I am very appalled by the alleged nature of this case and the potential for greater harm, however my hands are tied.’ . Notice how the judge hands are tied? Now one could say maybe she didn't try hard enough, afterall she is a Dem judge in a very blue city, but I am choosing to believe her at her words instead of thinking she just lies.
If neither side is constrained by text then we have created a Senate and not a Supreme Court.
For what its worth, I really would rather people bother to lie than to not lie at all. That would be a real breakdown of shame, a real arrogance of the dominant. "They don't even bother to lie badly anymore". At that point what would the minority do?
lollol
1d ago
Right, but it's more interesting to hear about someone saying judges should uphold a law in favor of slavery. That's judicial consistency.
lollol
1d ago
I am very clearly if a country Democratically enacts slavery judges 100% have to enforce it. That’s how a constitutional republic works. You seem to disagree with this.
I am not happy about the slavery for sure, but I am happy you are consistent. I was just confused because you said you don't want a perfect system but then call for judges to be automaton adhering to the text. I call the system you want "perfect" because that system has no loopholes nor room for mercy or second-chances. It is like the crude simple software, if there are bugs, the only way is to patch it. But clearly the legal system, and especially the case in complex software, has fallback for the human, the messy, the dirty "interpretive" stuff. Even in sentencing guidelines there are minimums and there are maximums. That's why there is jury and jury nullification. Of course when it comes to the Supreme Court where the hardest of cases land, there will be more "judgment" to be made.
They don’t get to make law. They need to uphold the law as written.
That I agree with you, legislating from the bench is not a good idea for it undermines the power and trust in the judiciary of the people. The thing is even defining what is legislating from the bench gets a debate. Unless you're just going to propose might make right again.
This is why I no longer give a shit about legal opinions. You vote for judges that do what you want them to do and I want judges appointed that do what I want them to do. Judges are not the State. ... My point here though when the top law schools have 10 different legal theories the system basically became figure out the result you want and then pick the theory that says your allowed to do that.
Well that's different. I respect judges who are consistent in their judiciary theory. I also respect consistent change in judiciary theory. Sometimes the theories would come to surprising results independent of political opinions or preferences. It's why we celebrate cases like when John Adams defend the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. I don't like judges who are inconsistent and flip-flop theories or twist their philosophy to get the desired results. And I think that's the crux between me and you. You are very clear about getting the results you want, while I do believe in having judges with independent and clear legal principles.
I assume you’re a Dem because West Wing is coded Dem.
We have wild political allegiances in this place. Who knows really :D.
In the old days the Dems did what I am describing. Figure out what you want like a right to abortion or gay marriage and then pick the theory to use. Now they had smart people who wrote well but it was really bullshit. Now we’ve downgraded to not even pretending anymore. Just put the wise Latina on the court who doesn’t need to follow the law because she’s like wise or empathetic or something. Just give me based judges when the GOP appoints someone now that will do what we want.
The system is the same. Law is just politics and has been least since FDR. The general public doesn’t read the arguments anyway. If I want to bang birthright citizenship it doesn’t matter to me if we have some smart guy who digs up transcripts from the 1860’s to justify the position or some 90 IQ 25 year old whose opinion is nothing more than I don’t like Mexicans.
This is just another form of the Israel/Palestinian debate where both sides just point at each other and say "you guys started it". For me, what you're proposing is just might make right. And look, I think you do have a formal legal theory you ascribe to, sounds to me like what Gorsuch has which is originalism when it comes to constitutional intepretation and textualism when it comes to statutory and regulatory matters. That I can respect as long as that matter is consistent. At the very least, this does mean that judges can rule in surprising ways.
And actually by this point, I think we have almost the same position and let me state it out to see what we overlap vs what we disagree on:
- We both prefer judges who are consistent in their application of the law.
- You prefer originalism/textualism, I prefer that judges should be consistent in whatever professed judicial formal theory they have.
- I think we both agree that the current crop of Justices are closer to "hacks coming to conclusions first and then twisting theories to fit what they want to write" than we would like.
- You are right, I am not a Republican supporter. And I think we would disagree with each other on whether the Blue Justices are more hacks than Red Justices.
- You have become disappointed and cynical and therefore now only care about the results. I make a distinction that I do think legal formalism is still important and we should get back to it where we can.
it doesn’t matter to me if we have some smart guy who digs up transcripts from the 1860’s to justify the position or some 90 IQ 25 year old whose opinion is nothing more than I don’t like Mexicans.
It matters because when the pendulum inevitably swings, we want good laws to be written on good arguments that most would agree with.
lollol
1d ago
First, I specifically said I do not want Judges to be a perfect system. I specifically cited slavery which is not perfect for a judge to declare someone a slave. It is their role in our society.
If a society democratically, representative or otherwise, legalize slavery, do you expect judges in that society to uphold such a law?
You shouldn’t cite “no vehicles in a park” because multiple people have responded that it was EASY to understand the rule.
You saw the actual statistical results captured by the site right? That 20% thought a horse is not a vehicle while 80% thought it is right? That there are many things easily agreed to by a large majority, but then with differing details, quickly, opinions diverged right? Also, "multiple people have responded that it was EASY", how do you know that's not just a loud minority? Also just because the majority agreed on something, when does it become tyranny of the majority?
On the point of slaves being ruled slaves I am specifically saying Judges often do NOT follow the law. You seem fine with this. I am not.
I would appreciate you don't draw up a straw-man of myself so you can fight. I do prefer following the law. I also do prefer judges follow the law. There are plenty of supreme court decisions I dislike but I think is following the constitutional law (for example Dobbs). What I am arguing for is that: you might think they are doing "interpretive word games", but for them, they have strongly held beliefs on how to interpret the law. You've essentially already pre-categorized any way of thinking that isn't like yours as to be "fast and loose" and therefore dismiss the end results.
This is why you like the debate societies of Westwing where the person who says the most interesting argument gets to ignore the law and just do what the want to do.
Well guess what, it's because I changed my mind after listening to people who I disagree with when they make a "rational" point. I think we are similar in this seeing as we're both here, in a place where debate and communication is prized, where opinions and ideas can change. Don't you see? Debate, winning it in public, finish or re-opening a fight, everything contributes to how people will understand and apply the law, or influence how laws are written or stricken down in the future. That is the game!
I 100% realize that is what I am thinking. It’s black and white. People who are elected get to have biases in decision making. People working as judges do not. This is called rule of law. It’s the same as the difference between an engineer that designs trains and one who operates trains. Designers get to have biases on what they want. Conductors operate the train that was designed.
This brings me back up to the very first question. If a society democratically, representative or otherwise, legalize slavery, do you expect judges in that society to uphold such a law? Is this what you expect? Is this what you want?
And since well the people in The West Wing did not do Rule of Law I no longer see why I should play their game anymore as a Republican. Just give me 6 SC Justices with 80 IQ who vote the way I want them to vote.
"Well that's just your opinion man". It's a very holier-than-thou attitude where you get to define what the "Rule of Law" is and then therefore can decide who is a cheater or not. When that's the point, the one who wins decides what the law means. Also, because if you don't persuade people but just force people, that's just plain tyranny.
lollol
1d ago
I am not asking for a perfect system. The Law though is different.
So you are asking for a perfect system? Or at the very least, that people has to perfectly attune to the textual reading of the laws? You saw in the other example https://novehiclesinthepark.com/ of how that quickly becomes untenable no? Why must we wallow in the disappointment of cynicism? Why isn't optimistic realism (or I suppose optimistic nihilism) an option for you? (You've obviously already rejected the delusional mythological idealism).
We have people who are allowed to have bias in our system. Elected officials. They can of course be tyrannical. I can and other citizens can have opinions on them and their actions. They can do bad things like legalize slavery. It’s not the job of a judge to have an opinion on slavery. If the law written by elected officials says that you are a slave then a judge is required to rule you are a slave if you challenge it in court.
If you have a society of peoples that decided to enslave others, don't worry, there will plenty of judges who will rule slaves are slaves, and the judges that don't won't be judges of that society for very long.
We have a system for people to have bias and it’s called Democracy.
In this whole conversation, I've come to realize that you have many things you consider in very black and white processes. Law has to be black and white. Democracy is allowed to be not black and white, Law is not allowed. Do you realize that in your thinking?
lollol
1d ago
Propaganda, radicalization, education, history revisionism, etc. "Deeply held convictions" are often proselytized.
lollol
1d ago
Law shouldn’t be debatable. It’s should be black and white.
Law is not Justice. It's about society trying its best to deliver something close to Justice. Why must law be "black and white"? Is it some notion of yours that things must be legible and understandable and if only everyone comes to the same conclusion from the same set of facts? But that isn't the case isn't even on the most mundane of things. Some people like Italian food, some don't. Some love horror movies, some don't. Some like running, some don't. Some likes this toy and not that toy. It's the same set of facts, very different conclusions. Now with matters of property and life and death, people will have very different opinions.
And this I think will increasingly be an issue.
It's always been an issue. It ebbs and flows. People are always disappointed in each other choices and opinions all the time (religion, monarchs, slavery, race, relationship preferences, pronouns, immigration, etc.). The basis of a society is the ability to smooth out these differences OR live with each other in spite of the differences. Preferably with little to no violence.
Sure I can nerd out and think the debates are intellectually stimulating, but at the end of the day a Dem will vote one way and a GOP the other way. You might as well just nominating Ketanjis who might write poorly but vote your way versus a Scalia. It’s basically just a super Senate. The opinions are just a game for some nerds.
From the same West Wing episode:
"Plenty of good laws [was] written by the voice of moderation"
"[But] who writes the extraordinary dissent? The one-man minority opinion whose time hasn't come. But 20 years later a court clerk digs it up at 3 in the morning"
Everyone has an opinion and can add, detract, modify, subtract, stimulate, influence, persuade others in society. Would I rather have a better writer and persuader in a liberal justice? Absolutely. And to be fair, Ketanji hasn't finished her term, nor has the long view of history descended after the present day has forgotten about her to truly analyze and evaluate her whole body of work. The final word has not yet been written on Ketanji, nor even a revival, as opinions turns and goes. I understand the need for answers now, immediately, full present. But look, you are here, I am here. As pointed out in a discussion last week, me, you, everybody, seems to have wildly different views. I don't know how many of us will actually influence society as a whole, but "no raindrop think it causes the flood" and "to change the world start with changing yourself" perfectly summarizes my thinking to this.
A big reason we got here is because justices thought it was an interpretive game to twist some words to get the political outcome they wanted instead of calling balls and strikes.
I reject your view of the world that things must be "perfect" and that "balls and strikes" can be called. Reality is way too messy and have way too many details.
Even if I came back to your analogy of how law should be like math, there are plenty of things that are "ideal" but can never be "real". For example, tangent waves, there are no real life examples of tangent waves. There are plenty of things that are modeled by tangent waves at close enough significant figures that it doesn't matter but no true always-reaching-infinite-slope tangent waves.
Or there are plenty of things in math that are "black and white" in one context, but is totally different in another. A 3-sided polygon (a triangle) can’t have three 90-degree angles in flat 2D geometry. But draw the triangle on a sphere, and suddenly it can. The context changed, and the rule broke immediately.
Also btw, did you forget the apocryphal legend of Pythagoras and the killing of Hippasus for the exposure of irrational numbers? Life is a series of games, and the game changes under your feet all the time.
lollol
2d ago
Thank you for the article! I quite enjoyed it. Reminded me of what Feynman wrote about great men. It reminds me of the episode "The Supremes" in The West Wing Season 5 as well. I thought your arc pretty much is the story of idealists being disappointed with reality and become a cynic. I think "Justice" with the capital J is like "Truth", it is something almost always unreachable, yet the correct thing, and the beautiful thing, is to keep striving towards it. The legal system, and as the article demonstrates or that West Wing episode dramatizes, benefits from intelligent, talented, thoughtful, experienced, and hard-working individuals with variety of viewpoints coming together to inspect problems from a variety of angles so that in the debate and discussion and verbal sparring and arguments, something closer to "Justice" can be found. At least, that's my optimistic takeaway.
Edit1: Oh man I love the clip, everyone should watch it (only 2m36s) https://youtube.com/watch?v=cYR3ZzOBg1Q
lollol
3d ago
Laws are a reflection of opinion and facts on the ground. I've stood corrected anyways that Australia has a patchwork in which there is some form of "all men are created equal" and therefore if the "conquerors" don't continuously and incessantly make it clear they are to always stomp on the heads of the "conquered", and if violence is not the answer, then narratives and political power is what's left. I think it's one of, or combination of, the following for me:
- Whites are only martial conquerors. Once it's no longer about martial legitimacy (but other forms like traditional, ideological, charismatic, and rational-legal legitimacy), whites aren't better than others. (Like you said: "win the war, lose the peace").
- Whites have won the game momentarily, and that the only way to go is down and let the law of historical averages drag them back to baseline.
- Whites as a whole is in such a dominant position that "billions, hundreds of billions, trillions" is actually small and not much of a price at all if looking at the grand scheme of things.
- Whites stopped thinking of themselves as whites, and the competition became moot (I suppose for you this is a subset of 1 and is a losing condition, but in a different point of view that's a winning condition)
lollol
3d ago
The Israelis don’t make this mistake, there aren’t any Palestinian land acknowledgements in the West Bank. They make good use of language and ritual, as did the Australians of old. In the 19th century, Australian newspapers would report on how colonists would eagerly ‘disperse’ or ‘duly and efficiently pound’ aboriginals. The Native Police would ‘give them a dressing down’, a ‘thumping’ or ‘a shaking up’.
huh, I would reverse that. Seems to me, 200 years from now, Israeli Jews are going to have to "[spend] billions, hundreds of billions, trillions paying subsidies, apologising to and working for low-performers who aren’t going to get their act together anytime soon and certainly aren’t going to be grateful for it."
PS: I was going to go a tangent about "all men are created equal" but then Australia is the only common law country with neither a constitutional nor federal legislative bill of rights to protect its citizens
lollol
5d ago
With regards to examining and addressing issues with men and boy in Western societies, I like to follow Richard Reeves. You can either watch the Big Think video or this interview he had with Ezra Klein
lollol
6d ago
Hey man, echoing what @Amadan says. I am not convinced by the HBD stuff though, unlike him. But I am also open to just come to this "public square" to listen in and see what it's about. I suppose the way that I stayed here so far was that I treat my presence here like Louis Theroux on an investigative trip. Only recently did I take a more proactive approach of actually contributing or starting conversations. I would encourage you to fight! fight on! And yes, it means in certain places and at certain moments, we fight by the rules the arena setup and rewards us for. Thankfully I trust in the mods of this arena, and also I guess a healthy boundary between knowing that "these people who I disagree with is out there" and "these people who I disagree with is harmful and dangerous to me imminently". This is after all just one corner in the vast internet, and the true public real life world out there has plenty spaces for me to fight, and not just by writing.
lollol
7d ago
btw, where do you get military morale or keep an ear on the ground? I don't quite trust the various military subreddits.
lollol
9d ago
he didn't bother to talk to people who understood governing
which everyone who understands the budget knows can't work because the math doesn't math.
Sounds like Musk didn't apply engineering first principles to his DOGE initiative. And as you pointed out, it takes time for a generally smart person to become an expert in the field, but I would like to point out that it all starts with first principles and that becoming a domain expert is always by applying first principles to their given interests.
Personally, my explanation for why Musk deviated from his successful formula is that Musk was ideologically captured, had increased drug use, and couldn't keep a cool head.
lollol
10d ago
What would you have any elite class in society do? Withdraw to the margins of society and live in their own gated communities, leaving the bulk of people to fend for themselves?
Really get to know the "local interests and norms of the broader population". Learn from them and align your and the public interests, or even do the hard work of persuasion and cajoling the public to follow you. I admit this is what Karp is doing and I at least respect him for wading into the fight. But to say "stop criticizing me" is just pathetic
I really don’t mind such a class of people, provided they’re actively working in my interests.
Exactly, I'm not sure if Karp's best interest is with mine. At the very least, it's certainly making me feel reactance to what he's proposing.
Opening up the discussion on Palantir's CEO 22 points manifesto (original twitter link) which is an excerpt for his new book The Technological Republic.
First impulses when reading through the list, I see that it's melding nationalism and civic responsibility with some kind of tech-elite-ism (?) and culture war critiques.
Anyways, here is what I got from it after thinking about it more and talking with various AI (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Qwen):
- Stop criticizing the elites that actually do something (go away we know what's good for you)
- the grunts should share more of the burden (you're not doing your part)
- Argues for inclusion, but implies that there should be a defined/national culture for inclusion and assimilate into (this "minority" thought is good, that "minority" thought is bad)(btw, I will tell you which one is good or bad)
- Civic religion for everyone! (and remember to be nice to your tech priests)
- You all are fat and weak because of all this peace stuff (Although I benefitted, you are going the wrong way btw)
I think I am influenced because I am currently reading through Seeing Like a State, but I get the feeling that Alex Karp believes he is a leader in a vanguard of tech elites that knows what's best (even if many are distracted from the real issues right now) and everyone should listen and just follow this vanguard. Oh and throw in some "woe is me, only I can save the republic, they just don't understand me, so read my book because then you will".
I think this is an interesting view into the CEO of one of the most important companies. My impression of the man has decreased, and increasing my concern for the kind of leaders and elites that is brewing up within American society.
At this point, you should drop the language about judicial restraint, judicial bias, and respect for the law. Your position from my understanding is: “Blues used the Court as a political weapon, so I want Reds to use it as a political weapon too.” That may be honest, but it is not a rule-of-law position, it's just power politics.
The important distinction is between “this is bad legal theory” vs “legal theory does not matter.” You can think Roe or Obergefell were badly reasoned, yet that doesn't have to lead right away to "judges should openly act like partisan legislators when our side controls the Court". Once you say “we own the Court now,” you have basically accepted the premise that the Court is just another legislature. And if that is true, then you have no principled objection when blue judges do the same thing next time, or when blues try to pack the Court.
Roe is actually a useful example here. Even if it helped liberals for decades, that was, as it turns out, temporary. Roe made the conflict more bitter, less settled, and more legitimacy-destroying. Your version of judicial nihilism would create the same problem in reverse.
So I understand the impulse for revenge, but that is what it is: revenge. It is not really about the Constitution or the rule of law anymore. It is about using the Court as a weapon because you believe the other side did it first. But there will always be people to your left and to your right, and no faction gets to bludgeon everyone else forever because that is not a stable or decent way to run a constitutional system.
More options
Context Copy link