- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 54,413
- Reaction score
- 51,086
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
"Not so long ago, “conservatives” used to insist that the judiciary operate within constraints. Judges shouldn’t venture far from precedent, they finger-wagged. They should spell out the reasoning behind their rulings. In statutory interpretation, they should stick to the words of a text and the intent of its drafters. That description, usually referred to as “judicial restraint,” bears no resemblance to the current right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. It’s no secret that right-wing justices are on a crusade to rip up precedent. From their efforts to weaken union rights to their threats of abandoning decades of abortion law, they have revealed their willingness to undertake dramatic shifts in law simply because they now have the votes to do so. In 2019, within the space of six weeks, the right-wing majority took a sledgehammer to precedent twice.
...Clarence Thomas...has opined that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, decided in 1964, should be overridden. He has said the same about Roe v. Wade. As the late justice Antonin Scalia, no fuzzy-headed progressive, once said of Thomas, “He does not believe in stare decisis, period.” ...Jackson’s noncontroversial statements sound like an indictment of the rogue majority....“Our obligation as judges is not to create policy. And if Congress has enacted a statute that establishes a cause of action or restricts causes of action, then as a general matter I don’t think that courts can oppose one.” How unlike Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who last year gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by inventing a whole new test for determining whether courts can review a voting restriction, drawing from logic found nowhere in the law. Kagan, in her dissent, declared, “The majority’s opinion mostly inhabits a law-free zone.
...Jackson’s confirmation hearing has shown beyond any doubt that she understands the proper role of the judiciary. But it has also raised questions about whether the same could be said of the Republican-appointed justices."
Link
Republicans make us a nation of judges, not a nation of laws.
...Clarence Thomas...has opined that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, decided in 1964, should be overridden. He has said the same about Roe v. Wade. As the late justice Antonin Scalia, no fuzzy-headed progressive, once said of Thomas, “He does not believe in stare decisis, period.” ...Jackson’s noncontroversial statements sound like an indictment of the rogue majority....“Our obligation as judges is not to create policy. And if Congress has enacted a statute that establishes a cause of action or restricts causes of action, then as a general matter I don’t think that courts can oppose one.” How unlike Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who last year gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by inventing a whole new test for determining whether courts can review a voting restriction, drawing from logic found nowhere in the law. Kagan, in her dissent, declared, “The majority’s opinion mostly inhabits a law-free zone.
...Jackson’s confirmation hearing has shown beyond any doubt that she understands the proper role of the judiciary. But it has also raised questions about whether the same could be said of the Republican-appointed justices."
Link
Republicans make us a nation of judges, not a nation of laws.