For the life of me I do not understand the SCOTUS in light of the obvious fact there are "right and left wing" judges.
The law is the law is the law - yes? Should not the bar be the Constitution and its interpretation? No male, female, black, white, brown, left or right. Just the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and the diligence of the justices to be so steeped in it and all legal decisions.
Could someone explain it to me like I'm a ten-year-old. How can justices be so obviously representative of left and right wing when it is the matter of constitutional law?
It strikes me that strict parameters be passed for SCOTUS selection based solely on adherence to the purity of constitutional law. A judge needs to be beyond politics and completely focused on intent of the framers. No waffling, influencing, just pure interpretation. Is that possible? Did Scalia - and does Thomas - best exemplify that?
Interesting thought?? Much as I am leery, a purely legal ChatGPT: Program in pure constitutional law and all prior rulings and see what comes up with individual cases. One could hope that personality, right/left politics, gender might play a lesser part in decisions? Or am I dreamer?
I am not being cheeky… And I did mention I was Canadian and asking for some greater understanding here.
Perhaps I did not put my follow-up question well. Has there ever been discussion that SCOTUS selection process be firmed up and legalized to select only those who give sold evidence of seeking to rule by intent of framers? Or is that impossible given history and passage of time?
Realize writers are busy, but if they have a substack with a combox then might it be hoped there is some substantial feedback?
And I am being quite literal. Any process of that kind would need to be approved by the very politicos who want a political process that allows them to shape American law and culture in winner-take-all Senate and White House races. That has only gotten worse post-Roe. You will want to check out the chapters on SCOTUS realities in the classic 1990s James Davison Hunter books such as "Culture Wars" and "Before the Shooting Begins."
Canadian here.
For the life of me I do not understand the SCOTUS in light of the obvious fact there are "right and left wing" judges.
The law is the law is the law - yes? Should not the bar be the Constitution and its interpretation? No male, female, black, white, brown, left or right. Just the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and the diligence of the justices to be so steeped in it and all legal decisions.
Could someone explain it to me like I'm a ten-year-old. How can justices be so obviously representative of left and right wing when it is the matter of constitutional law?
Theologically? We live in a fallen world.
Yes, of course.
It strikes me that strict parameters be passed for SCOTUS selection based solely on adherence to the purity of constitutional law. A judge needs to be beyond politics and completely focused on intent of the framers. No waffling, influencing, just pure interpretation. Is that possible? Did Scalia - and does Thomas - best exemplify that?
Interesting thought?? Much as I am leery, a purely legal ChatGPT: Program in pure constitutional law and all prior rulings and see what comes up with individual cases. One could hope that personality, right/left politics, gender might play a lesser part in decisions? Or am I dreamer?
Wait. You realize that the justices are selected-approved by politicians in an age after Roe v Wade?
I am not being cheeky… And I did mention I was Canadian and asking for some greater understanding here.
Perhaps I did not put my follow-up question well. Has there ever been discussion that SCOTUS selection process be firmed up and legalized to select only those who give sold evidence of seeking to rule by intent of framers? Or is that impossible given history and passage of time?
Realize writers are busy, but if they have a substack with a combox then might it be hoped there is some substantial feedback?
And I am being quite literal. Any process of that kind would need to be approved by the very politicos who want a political process that allows them to shape American law and culture in winner-take-all Senate and White House races. That has only gotten worse post-Roe. You will want to check out the chapters on SCOTUS realities in the classic 1990s James Davison Hunter books such as "Culture Wars" and "Before the Shooting Begins."
An excellent presentation. Some of Justice Barrett's decisions have had me baffled and perplexed. Your article has me pondering thoughtfully.