Does the left politicize the role of the Supreme Court?

[Scott C.]

There's no question that both the left and right want their President to appoint like minded judges to the Supreme Court. It's a matter of luck as to who is in charge of the nation when a Supreme Court member retires or passes away. I submit however, that the leftist philosophy politicizes the Court, whereas the right's does not. If we have a majority of leftist judges, then it's likely that cases will be decided based on what the judges think is good law. If they don't think we "should" have laws that prohibit abortion, they will find a way to loosely interpret the constitution to prohibit laws against abortion. So they are imposing their personal moral value judgment on what they think "should be". They therefore rule according to their values or their politics. On the other hand, if you have a majority of conservative judges, they are most likely to strictly interpret the constitution. They will not decide law based on what they think should be law. They will overturn law only if it clearly violates the constitution. That will be true if the law in question is a liberal or a conservative law. It that sense, Liberals are protected as much as Conservatives against a Court that will overturn the will of the people, be that will liberal or conservative. The way I see it, the will of the people is most preserved with a conservative court. The will of the people is more likely to be overturned by a liberal court. Clearly, at times the will of the people needs to be overturned by the Court if that will clearly violates the Constitution, but only if it violates the Constitution, and does not just violate the personal sensibilities of those on the court.

 

[Tambourine]

A Constitutional Court position is almost always a political appointment.
I don't see what's there to further "politicize" about that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree that conservatives are more likely to strictly interpret the constitution, or are less likely to find ways to loosely enforce their views. The overturn of bans on same-sex marriage wouldn't have likely happened if the SCOTUS was more conservative bent at the time. Ditto with interracial marriage bans back during loving v virginia.

 

[Tambourine]

What is a "strict" interpretation of the US Constitution, anyway?

 

[QuestioningMind]

There's no question that both the left and right want their President to appoint like minded judges to the Supreme Court. It's a matter of luck as to who is in charge of the nation when a Supreme Court member retires or passes away. I submit however, that the leftist philosophy politicizes the Court, whereas the right's does not. If we have a majority of leftist judges, then it's likely that cases will be decided based on what the judges think is good law. If they don't think we "should" have laws that prohibit abortion, they will find a way to loosely interpret the constitution to prohibit laws against abortion. So they are imposing their personal moral value judgment on what they think "should be". They therefore rule according to their values or their politics. On the other hand, if you have a majority of conservative judges, they are most likely to strictly interpret the constitution. They will not decide law based on what they think should be law. They will overturn law only if it clearly violates the constitution. That will be true if the law in question is a liberal or a conservative law. It that sense, Liberals are protected as much as Conservatives against a Court that will overturn the will of the people, be that will liberal or conservative. The way I see it, the will of the people is most preserved with a conservative court. The will of the people is more likely to be overturned by a liberal court. Clearly, at times the will of the people needs to be overturned by the Court if that will clearly violates the Constitution, but only if it violates the Constitution, and does not just violate the personal sensibilities of those on the court.

Sorry, but the idea that Republicans are 'strict constitutionalists' is another of those phony labels they give themselves, just like claiming that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party. If they were truly strict constitutionalists then the only people who would be allowed to own guns would be members of a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard.

 

[sun rise]

The right is utterly politicizing SCOTUS and whining about what the left might do. The right is saying we can do whatever we want and dress it up in appropriate language but how dare the left think that it can do the same thing. The right wants the power and the left should just roll over and take it.

WRONG.

 

[tytlyf]

The SCOTUS has had a conservative majority for decades.
Then Scalia dies and Obama nominated Gorsuch.
The Republican Senate did not allow a confirmation vote with a year before an election.
Now RGB dies and Trump nominated ACB.
The Republican Senate is now allowing a confirmation vote with 7 days before an election.
The proper way is to allow a confirmation vote. Gorsuch would have been replacing Scalia.
Thus, the progressives would have a majority. That was robbed to keep a conservative majority.
So they're essentially stealing 2 seats making a super majority.
I hope everyone is ready to experience a Theocratic SCOTUS.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's no question that both the left and right want their President to appoint like minded judges to the Supreme Court. It's a matter of luck as to who is in charge of the nation when a Supreme Court member retires or passes away. I submit however, that the leftist philosophy politicizes the Court, whereas the right's does not. If we have a majority of leftist judges, then it's likely that cases will be decided based on what the judges think is good law. If they don't think we "should" have laws that prohibit abortion, they will find a way to loosely interpret the constitution to prohibit laws against abortion. So they are imposing their personal moral value judgment on what they think "should be". They therefore rule according to their values or their politics. On the other hand, if you have a majority of conservative judges, they are most likely to strictly interpret the constitution. They will not decide law based on what they think should be law. They will overturn law only if it clearly violates the constitution. That will be true if the law in question is a liberal or a conservative law. It that sense, Liberals are protected as much as Conservatives against a Court that will overturn the will of the people, be that will liberal or conservative. The way I see it, the will of the people is most preserved with a conservative court. The will of the people is more likely to be overturned by a liberal court. Clearly, at times the will of the people needs to be overturned by the Court if that will clearly violates the Constitution, but only if it violates the Constitution, and does not just violate the personal sensibilities of those on the court.

The evangelical right desires a Supreme Court that supports a Evangelical Theocracy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

whereas the right's does not. I

Then explain Trump's claims that he will appoint anti-abortion judges and the Rights widespread support of that agenda. Explain the Republicans denying Obama his rightful appointment and then turning hypocrite when Trump is in a similar position.

 

[Scott C.]

I disagree that conservatives are more likely to strictly interpret the constitution, or are less likely to find ways to loosely enforce their views. The overturn of bans on same-sex marriage wouldn't have likely happened if the SCOTUS was more conservative bent at the time. Ditto with interracial marriage bans back during loving v virginia.

I agree the overturn of the ban on same sex marriages would not have happened with a conservative court that strictly interprets the Constitution. That proves my point.

 

[Scott C.]

Sorry, but the idea that Republicans are 'strict constitutionalists' is another of those phony labels they give themselves, just like claiming that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party. If they were truly strict constitutionalists then the only people who would be allowed to own guns would be members of a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard.

I'm not talking about the Republicans. I talking about judges who are indeed strict constructionaists. I agree that both parties appoint judges who they think will legislate according to their (the appointees) agenda. But a judge with integrity follows their judicial philosophy on the court.

 

[Scott C.]

The SCOTUS has had a conservative majority for decades.
Then Scalia dies and Obama nominated Gorsuch.
The Republican Senate did not allow a confirmation vote with a year before an election.
Now RGB dies and Trump nominated ACB.
The Republican Senate is now allowing a confirmation vote with 7 days before an election.
The proper way is to allow a confirmation vote. Gorsuch would have been replacing Scalia.
Thus, the progressives would have a majority. That was robbed to keep a conservative majority.
So they're essentially stealing 2 seats making a super majority.
I hope everyone is ready to experience a Theocratic SCOTUS.

They didn't steal any seats although I agree they changed their tune between the Obama and Trump terms. But the Democrats would have done exaclty the same thing. The party that is empowered, by the vore of the people (if you dislike the electoral college, that is irrelevent), has the right and authority to nominate the next judge. Like I said, it's the luck of the draw on who is in power when a new judge is appointed. But even if you want to make a case that they stole any seats, I would argue it was one seat and not two. Had the Republicans allowed Obama;s nominee to be approved, they would have set the precedent that they can allow the last Trump nominee to be approved as well. The score for the last three appointments would be Republicans 2, Democrats 1, instead of Republicans 3, Democrats 0. How do you make a case that the score should be 1-2?

 

[Scott C.]

Then explain Trump's claims that he will appoint anti-abortion judges and the Rights widespread support of that agenda. Explain the Republicans denying Obama his rightful appointment and then turning hypocrite when Trump is in a similar position.

I agree that politicians are political and hypocritcal and they want judges that will further their agenda. The Democrats and Repblicans are exactly the same in this regard and use the same tactics. I can see why Democrats are stressed that the tables turned quickly on the balance in the Court in the past 4 years.But my point is not about the politicians. It's about the judges. A judge with integrity does not make rulings to support his or her personal political agenda. He or she rules based on the law, A judge with integrity will not overturn a law simply because they oppose the law or simply because the nominating President wants them to overturn the law. They will overturn a law if and only if the law is unconstituional. By the very definition of the terms liberal and conservative, a liberal judge is more likely to "find" a legal objection to a law that they don't like. A conservative judge is less likely to find a legal objection to a law that they don't like. This is why I say a conservative court is more likely to let the voice of the people stand (i.e., that which was legislated), rather than rule something to be unconstitutional.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not talking about the Republicans. I talking about judges who are indeed strict constructionaists. I agree that both parties appoint judges who they think will legislate according to their (the appointees) agenda. But a judge with integrity follows their judicial philosophy on the court.

What makes you think liberal justices don't follow their judicial philosophy with integrity? It's not possible to you that liberals just genuinely disagree with conservatives on how to interpret the Constitution?

 

[Scott C.]

What makes you think liberal justices don't follow their judicial philosophy with integrity? It's not possible to you that liberal just genuinely disagree with conservatives on how to interpret the Constitution?

Yeah, I would restate what I said. A liberal judge can and does work with integrity. As long as they make rulings consistent with their judicial philoosphy and never allow their political views to influence, they are ok. But I think since they are liberal and allow themselves a liberal apporach to the constitution they have a luxury that conservative judges do not, which is to rule according to what they think "should" be law rather that what the constitution strictly says. So while I will not challenge their integrity I do challenge this judicial philosphy. A liberal judical philosophy gvies the Judical Branch of government way too much power to legislate from the bench.There is too much liberal leeway to negate the vote of the people.

 

[Left Coast]

By the very definition of the terms liberal and conservative, a liberal judge is more likely to "find" a legal objection to a law that they don't like. A conservative judge is less likely to find a legal objection to a law that they don't like.

Ah okay, that's the problem. Your defintions are wrong.

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, I would restate what I said. A liberal judge can and does work with integrity. As long as they make rulings consistent with their judicial philoosphy and never allow their political views to influence, they are ok. But I think since they are liberal and allow themselves a liberal apporach to the constitution they have a luxury that conservative judges do not, which is to rule according to what they think "should" be law rather that what the constitution strictly says.

Then you misunderstand what makes people liberals. Liberal judges have no more "leeway" to interpret the Constitution according to their whims than conservatives, and conservatives are no less prone to treat cases with ideologically motivated bias than liberals.

 

[Scott C.]

Ah okay, that's the problem. Your defintions are wrong.

How so? I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of the very emotional subject of abortion, but... a judge has to be liberal to read into anit-abortion laws a violation of privacy laws in the constitution. Forget about a person's personal views on abortion and what laws they do or do not want to be legislated. From a purely judicial perspective, a judge (with integrity) must be a liberally minded judicial thinker to find unconstitutionaliy in anti-abortion laws.

 

[Scott C.]

Another way to think of this is, ask yourself how many protections from bad laws does the constitution provide? Is is 10 or 10,000? I realize the question is a little ridiculous but bare with me. A liberal view is an expanded view of what the constitution will allow or not allow as legislation. Clearly the more broadly or liberally that you intepret the constituion, the more types of laws you will find to be unconstitutional. A liberal court is therefore more likely to strike down a law than a conservative court.

 

[Left Coast]

How so? I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of the very emotional subject of abortion, but... a judge has to be liberal to read into anit-abortion laws a violation of privacy laws in the constitution. Forget about a person's personal views on abortion and what laws they do or do not want to be legislated. From a purely judicial perspective, a judge (with integrity) must be a liberally minded judicial thinker to find unconstitutionaliy in anti-abortion laws.

No. Chief Justice Burger, who was in the majority on the Roe case, was a conservative, for example. The dispute over abortion represents an honest disagreement between justices regarding how to interpret the Constitution, and the degree to which it protects a personal right to privacy, due process, and so on.