Donald Trump has not had the opportunity to pack the US supreme court to nearly the same degree. Nor has he, despite his brash, bullying ways, done much to pressure or browbeat the court’s nine justices. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative supermajority has ruled time after time in favor of Trump since he returned to office. The six conservative justices have fallen into line much like Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges, even though the supreme court’s justices have life tenure to insulate them from political pressures.
Possibly because what Trump’s doing – or at least those issues whoch have reached the SC – is constitutional and legal?
SCOTUS consists of just two genuine conservatives, three unreliables (worst of all being the deeply disappointing sheep in wolf’s clothing ACB) who take turns to team up with Roberts and the Dems, the aforementioned mega-cuck “Obamacare is really a tax” Roberts and three hard core lefties of varying intellect from moderate down to barely detectable but with an unshakeable determination to reinterpret the constitution to reflect and support today’s muh values.
An unsatisfactory group who far too often have abrogated their responsibilities (and presumably their oaths of office) by punting back to the lower courts rather than making glaringly obvious decisions.
And that children is why the MAGA agenda, despite being precisely what people voted for, is taking so long to be implemented.
“Fallen into line”.
Yes in the same way that he probably believes the bbc is too right-wing.
I love the supreme court how judges of different opinions make different judgements on whether abortion is legal or not – and those judgements are always what they would like to be true.
It tells us that judges just make up a reason to support what they believe.
We don’t have the rule of law – we have the rule of judges.
“whether abortion is legal or not”: how on earth have you persuaded yourself that that is what SCOTUS has ruled on? Even the appalling Wade-Roe decision was not about whether it was legal.
Sorry apologies whether abortion is a constitutional right.
However my main point – that judges just make up a reason to support what they want to be legal is still valid
Exactly. When you get to the very top of the legal tree, then there actually is no law, because its just what the supreme court judges decree it is. They could literally decree that a given law meant the exact opposite of what it actually says, and that would then be the law, because there’s no one to gainsay them.
Congress could then enact a new law or reword existing, so the SCOTUS ruling isn’t final.
Yes segregation was constitutional in the 19th century and unconstitutional in 20th century.
Plessy v. Ferguson – Wikipedia
Brown v. Board of Education – Wikipedia – if people change laws – shouldn’t they be elected people?
But at some point you have to have an interpretation body that decides on meaning, and that is ultimately in the US, SCOTUS. They *should* not be free to interpret willy-nilly but should at least attempt to hew to the texts as they have them. There is a mechanism to amend the Constitution (and it has been amended numerous times) but it is not an easy one. This is one reason that the originalist view has some merit, interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be understood to the best of their ability. The biggest problem arises with the alternate “living document” approach which basically says that the constitution is untethered in anything and means what we say it does at any given moment. That certainly leads to un-elected lawmaking
I agree.
And they quite rightly (just IMHO) found that the constitution did not cover abortion so as per the constitution that matter is one for the individual states to manage as a political issue. I have trouble seeing why people have such a strong objection to that ruling. The previous “right” to abortion was found through a tortuous interpretation of the right to privacy, a decision that even the “liberal” judicial icon RBG thought was an improper interpretation.
“When a judge assumes for him or herself the powers that have been delegated by the Constitution to the president, that is a form of illegal insurrection.”
Stephen Miller, on the state judges who are doing their best to subvert the constitution and the will of the people.
Sounds like Guardian WANTS them to be political. Just on the other side.
For the Supreme Court to rule justly half in favor of each side, the cases before it would have to be balanced.
They’re not.
This isn’t two kids and their mom, “Johnny and Jane each get half of the cake. Now shut up.”
More indications that Guardian “journalists” are only capable of a child’s reasoning.