You're on SCOTUS: What is you're guiding philosophy?

[KaiserDave]

Same as above! You've been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate after being found as qualified and probably politically reliable as well. What legal philosophy do you bring to the bench?


I'll post mine soon!

[Donerail]

There are two parties in every case. One of them is The Asshole. The role of the judge is to identify that party and make them lose.

[brucejoel99]

The judiciary has broad discretion to define & expand upon our rights, which aren't to be narrowly limited & defined by the Constitution, as doing so would inherently make it harder to further expand upon them as society evolves & adapts to progressing circumstances.

[Del Tachi]

Above all, justices should be prudent.  That means interpreting the questions in the case as narrowly as possible and avoiding establishing new, broad rules or sweeping precedents.  In practice, the Court should correct injustices resulting from government action but it should very rarely create new positive rights or exemptions that upend the legislative process. 

[windjammer]

As Chief Justice of Atlasia (lol), my guiding philosophy has been to keep the supreme court powers as limited as possible. Basically against any kind of judiciary overreach. I believe it is fundamentally silly to try to use some XVIIIth century text for current legislative debates.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All liberal, all the time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The key word to my judicial philosophy would be "deference" . The Necessary and Proper clause gives Congress a lot of leeway as long as it can present a prima facie case that what it is trying to do falls within the scope of at least one of its enumerated powers and there isn't some other part of the Constitution that explicitly bars what it is trying to do. Similarly the 10th Amendment gives State governments broad discretion. Sometimes the result of such a philosophy would be seen as conservative and sometimes as progressive in the terms of modern politics.  For instance, taking into consideration the two main policy issues that have been raised by the ACB nomination, ACA would be absolutely safe from me, but Roe and Casey would not, especially Casey. Stare decisis would cause me to see if I or some bright law clerk could cobble a replacement rationale for a Constitutional right to abortion, but I haven't really worried about the issue, and at least at first glance I don't see it.

While I think abortion access in at minimum the first trimester is good policy, please keep in mind that I don't accept the notion that good laws and Constitutional laws are the same thing.  Legislatures exist to decide what is good law, courts should only decide if laws are clearly unconstitutional.

[Ferguson97]

All liberal, all the time.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'd never get on the Supreme Court in the first place.

But if Biden did appoint me I'd hire the best clerks, to write my opinions.

I'd probably model myself as a hybrid of Warren, Sotomayor and to a lesser extent Roberts on philosophy (Warren and Sotomayor for their politics, Roberts because of his views on the role of the judiciary.)

[MarkD]

Originalism, also known as Interpretivism, according to how the latter term was defined in Prof. John Hart Ely's 1980 book "Democracy and Distrust."

As Judge Learned Hand said in his radio address in 1935 (later published in his 1952 book "The Spirit of Liberty"), "But the judge must always remember that he should go no further than he is sure the [lawmakers] would have gone, had [they] been faced with the case before him. If he is in doubt, he must stop, for he cannot tell that the conflicting interests in the society for which he speaks would have come to a just result, even though he is sure that he knows what the just result should be. He is not to substitute his juster will for theirs; otherwise it would not be the common will which prevails, and to that extent the people would not govern."

[VBM]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

[KaiserDave]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd model myself on a cross between Gorsuch and Sotomayor--textualism, but not originalism, and vindicating the causes of the vulnerable whenever possible. I'd probably cultivate an unusually expansive understanding of the Equal Protection Clause and/or of statutory civil rights law to make up for my very low view of substantive due process.

[Vosem]

Originalism with some deference to very well-established policies, even if not necessarily to well-established decisions. I would not overturn Roe or Casey, but I would find the right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment rather than in any penumbras, and Congress's right to enact civil rights legislation in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Commerce Clause. (I think many of the first amendments are worded in a much broader way than they are normally read.) I would, like Thomas, be perfectly open to overruling 19th-century Fourteenth Amendment decisions instead of pretending they are still binding.

I would be quite hardline on states' rights not to be instructed by the federal government; I would vote to overrule not merely South Dakota v. Dole but Steward Machine Co. v. Davis.

For statutory interpretation, I suppose mainly textualist, but I'm uncertain of whether I would have a coherent philosophy in cases where there are simply errors in the text of the law, and I think in cases where technology or culture have moved to a place which the authors of the law didn't foresee it's hard to have any coherent principles besides "don't force bad policy on the people; that's the legislature's job". That might be activist judgment, I suppose. I would be hesitant of getting a statute to do something its authors didn't intend, as Gorsuch did in Bostock, but I also can't say that it's never appropriate.

[VBM]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

[Vosem]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

Any particular examples?

(Besides Bush v. Gore, where the right-wing judges' hypocrisy in adopting the left-wing position was matched only by the left-wing judges' hypocrisy in adopting the right-wing position.)

[VBM]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

Any particular examples?

(Besides Bush v. Gore, where the right-wing judges' hypocrisy in adopting the left-wing position was matched only by the left-wing judges' hypocrisy in adopting the right-wing position.)

They think that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to gay marriage because reasons

[KaiserDave]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

So then you say...skip democracy and just have judges do whatever they want?

[Vosem]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

Any particular examples?

(Besides Bush v. Gore, where the right-wing judges' hypocrisy in adopting the left-wing position was matched only by the left-wing judges' hypocrisy in adopting the right-wing position.)

They think that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to gay marriage because reasons

Is that insane? There are no 14th Amendment cases involving a right to marriage¹ until Zablocki v. Redhail, which was a 1978 case; it was decided 8-1 with Rehnquist dissenting, and Thomas and Alito generally share much of Rehnquist's philosophy. It never seems to say anything direct about marriage; for over 100 years of its history nobody thought the 14th Amendment had anything to do with it.

(I'm uncertain Washington v. Glucksberg -- which found no right to assisted suicide -- was decided correctly; it seems to me that there is no meaningful right to privacy² or bodily autonomy without it. I agree with you that Obergefell was decided correctly in the light of Zablocki -- and I think Zablocki was decided correctly, though I'm conflicted about it -- but it seems rather bizarre to me to argue that the Constitution protects marriage more than assisted suicide.)

¹Unless you count Loving, but that case didn't find a right to marriage; it found anti-miscegenation laws to unconstitutionally discriminate based on race.
²"The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

[S019]

Moderate liberalism honestly, I'd probably vote mostly with the Dem bloc, but defect on issues like drugs, I would side with opinions that I generally agreed, but personally thought they'd go too far, if such a ruling was closer to my personal views. So not a hack, but not a total centrist either.

[VBM]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

So then you say...skip democracy and just have judges do whatever they want?

Since when are Justices democratically elected? They’re already allowed to do whatever they want.

[KaiserDave]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

So then you say...skip democracy and just have judges do whatever they want?

Since when are Justices democratically elected? They’re already allowed to do whatever they want.

You said that you would do whatever you wanted. So naturally that is fairly undemocratic. Like...very much so.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Moderate liberalism honestly, I'd probably vote mostly with the Dem bloc, but defect on issues like drugs,

.................

[VBM]

I think that the Constitution is an outdated piece of junk, so I would just do what I think is best for the nation

What's the point of laws then if an unelected judge can just do whatever they want?

I mean...you of course can rule however you like but I view it as wrong to not ground it in some legal basis, even if it's not originalist (and I am not one).

The Constitution should have been rewritten long ago, and the only reason why it hasn’t is because of the ridiculous requirements for amending the Constitution and the large portion of rubes in this country who buy into the right wing narrative that the Constitution is some sort of God-given document written by men wiser than anyone alive. Besides, Republican hacks like Alito and Thomas pretty much ignore the Constitution whenever it’s convenient to them anyways

So then you say...skip democracy and just have judges do whatever they want?

Since when are Justices democratically elected? They’re already allowed to do whatever they want.

You said that you would do whatever you wanted. So naturally that is fairly undemocratic. Like...very much so.

That’s already what most Justices do anyways lol.

I could completely ignore the Constitution and my rulings would still be more faithful to the Constitution than Alito’s rulings

[KaiserDave]

Whatever.

Mine would be similar to Nathan's. Based in textualism (NOT originalism of any kind), but entirely pragmatic, and with an eye to both future precedent and how the law would be enforced. I do not consider myself a modernist, or a supporter of the living constitution theory, but the decisions I would make would probably come down on the liberal side, though not too liberal.

I would not bring original intent of any kind into my decisions.

I also view the professionalism, dignity, and apoliticism of the court as very important.

A unique mix of Sotomayor, Breyer, Roberts, and Gorsuch.