- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 46,485
- Reaction score
- 22,693
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Have you noticed if you ask Republicans, 'are you in favor of the Justices having political agendas they push', they think of Justices they disagree with and say "NO!"
But if you ask them, are they in favor of Justices like Thomas and Scalia having political agendas they push - the real answer, whatever they say, is "OH YA!"
The thing this thread is noting is how the theory of the Supreme Court is that they respond to problems brought to them - real problems that have happened. As a matter of policy, they refuse to rule on hypotheticals. Congress can't say "We're thinking of passing a law to do something, could you say if it would be unconstitutional?" They have to pass it and then get sued.
And as bad as it is, that there is a huge industry in 'agenda lawsuits' that manufacture lawsuits for the court to push an agenda - and it's just standard practice that people wanting a Supreme Court case at least 'cherry pick' from cases to bring - that the Justices don't actually *advertise an agenda to invite cases*.
But that's exactly what Thomas did. The radical six not only violated their policy not to rule more broadly than the case they're deciding, when they overturned Roe v. Wade over the Mississippi law that did not require them to do so, but Thomas then *went advertising for cases he wants brought to be overturned* - a whole series of rights including contraception, gay marriage and criminalization of gay sex.
Yet you won't hear a peep from the right about a Supreme Court Justice *advertising a political agenda asking for cases for him to overturn rights*, because they agree with his political agenda. That's how much their 'principles' count for. The rules are only to block 'liberals'.
But if you ask them, are they in favor of Justices like Thomas and Scalia having political agendas they push - the real answer, whatever they say, is "OH YA!"
The thing this thread is noting is how the theory of the Supreme Court is that they respond to problems brought to them - real problems that have happened. As a matter of policy, they refuse to rule on hypotheticals. Congress can't say "We're thinking of passing a law to do something, could you say if it would be unconstitutional?" They have to pass it and then get sued.
And as bad as it is, that there is a huge industry in 'agenda lawsuits' that manufacture lawsuits for the court to push an agenda - and it's just standard practice that people wanting a Supreme Court case at least 'cherry pick' from cases to bring - that the Justices don't actually *advertise an agenda to invite cases*.
But that's exactly what Thomas did. The radical six not only violated their policy not to rule more broadly than the case they're deciding, when they overturned Roe v. Wade over the Mississippi law that did not require them to do so, but Thomas then *went advertising for cases he wants brought to be overturned* - a whole series of rights including contraception, gay marriage and criminalization of gay sex.
Yet you won't hear a peep from the right about a Supreme Court Justice *advertising a political agenda asking for cases for him to overturn rights*, because they agree with his political agenda. That's how much their 'principles' count for. The rules are only to block 'liberals'.