Supreme Court Justices

[MarkD]

A conservative court rules based on the Republican Party platform (Citizens United, Hobby Lobby).
A liberal court rules based on the Constitution (Roe, Obergefell, Miller V. Alabama)

Yeah, see this is why I don't think we should base judicial appointments on partisan scorekeeping. All judicial appointments would ideally revolve around the credentials of the candidates themselves. Let's not kid ourselves, the majority of the people concerned with the composition of the Supreme Court couldn't give a fig about how well-grounded the judges are in their philosophical approach to interpreting the Constitution, they just want a partisan hack in a robe whose rulings would be coterminous with their own partisan preferences.

And this is why presidential candidates say the things that they do about their anticipated choices for who to appoint to the Supreme Court -- to pander their party's base of voters, not to educate the public what the Court needs. Hence, I have not voted D or R for President in the last sixteen years.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I always liked Cardozo's frustration with people who act like there's One True Interpretation that liberal/conservative judges have strayed from:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A conservative court rules based on the Republican Party platform (Citizens United, Hobby Lobby).
A liberal court rules based on the Constitution (Roe, Obergefell, Miller V. Alabama)

That being said, I HAVE to assume this is a parody. Roe was made with a tenuous link to the already hilariously shaky interpretation of "penumbras and emanations of Bill of Rights guarantees" in Griswold. Obergefell explicitly ignored standard equal protection analysis and used a strained substantive due process analysis to avoid recognizing gays as a protected class. Miller, unable to rely on standard "evolving standards of decency" analysis because states were actually moving toward stronger punishment of juveniles, instead unconventionally relied on psychiatric papers as its primary justification. None of these are consistent and none are good hallmarks for "rules based on the constitution."

Citizens United was a logical, if unexpected, leap in the corporate personhood doctrine which has existed in common law for centuries. It followed from the ruling in Buckley that contributions to campaigns were speech and that this speech could only be restricted in certain ways.  

    Bringing in this sort of legal analysis illustrates immediately what is broken about our judiciary. Almost no political commentators are knowledgeable about these issues. Few politicians are (even if they have JDs), and the ones who are legal experts willfully ignore these issues to play partisan politics. Why then must the judiciary be beholden to entities that neither understand nor act in concordance with orthodox interpretations of constitutional law?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The Supreme Court's role should be reduced to the size that you could drown it in the bathtub, or at least to the size where the justices never make the news barring a scandal. Same with Congress.

This.  In the meantime, however, I very much support activist judges who will be warriors for the unborn and religious liberty.  This is where I break strongly from the GOP mantra of "no litmus tests" other than a verbal assent to strict constructionism - I don't care if there is a valid constitutional argument for Roe v. Wade, it was the wrong decision and every effort must be made to appoint justices who will tear it down. The left has a strong commitment to support justices who will transform the United States in the direction they want it to.  In this battle, we need to fight fire with fire, which is why Pryor would've been preferable to Gorsuch (I still think Gorsuch will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but I'd be far more confident with Pryor) for the sake of the unborn.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Supreme Court's role should be reduced to the size that you could drown it in the bathtub, or at least to the size where the justices never make the news barring a scandal. Same with Congress.

This.  In the meantime, however, I very much support activist judges who will be warriors for the unborn and religious liberty.  This is where I break strongly from the GOP mantra of "no litmus tests" other than a verbal assent to strict constructionism - I don't care if there is a valid constitutional argument for Roe v. Wade, it was the wrong decision and every effort must be made to appoint justices who will tear it down. The left has a strong commitment to support justices who will transform the United States in the direction they want it to.  In this battle, we need to fight fire with fire, which is why Pryor would've been preferable to Gorsuch (I still think Gorsuch will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but I'd be far more confident with Pryor) for the sake of the unborn.

Do you support the death penalty for mothers who get abortions in cases of rape and incest?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The Supreme Court's role should be reduced to the size that you could drown it in the bathtub, or at least to the size where the justices never make the news barring a scandal. Same with Congress.

This.  In the meantime, however, I very much support activist judges who will be warriors for the unborn and religious liberty.  This is where I break strongly from the GOP mantra of "no litmus tests" other than a verbal assent to strict constructionism - I don't care if there is a valid constitutional argument for Roe v. Wade, it was the wrong decision and every effort must be made to appoint justices who will tear it down. The left has a strong commitment to support justices who will transform the United States in the direction they want it to.  In this battle, we need to fight fire with fire, which is why Pryor would've been preferable to Gorsuch (I still think Gorsuch will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but I'd be far more confident with Pryor) for the sake of the unborn.

Do you support the death penalty for mothers who get abortions in cases of rape and incest?

No, I don't - I think the primary punishment should be to the abortionist, not the woman seeking it.  I would like to see an abortion ban except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.  Those last three conditions are indeed very contentious and make up such a small percentage of abortions that I don't think they should even be discussed until other abortions are banned, and I'm more than willing to accept permanent legal status in those situations in exchange for outlawing abortion in other circumstances.