The next Supreme Court judge

[mistermack]

They should change the name of the US to the "Not-very United States" since they all seem to want different laws from the other states. That's why they need a political supreme court, making laws.

In the UK, the courts are there to "interpret" laws made by parliament, not to make new ones. 

The only exception to that is when parliament gives away power to European courts, and the role of our own supreme court becomes just a pathetic guessing game of what the relevant European court would do. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's why they need a political supreme court, making laws.

In the UK, the courts are there to "interpret" laws made by parliament, not to make new ones. 

The Supreme Court in the US is the same. They don’t make laws either. 

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

The Supreme Court in the US is the same. They don’t make laws either. 

They do have the power to overturn laws that are deemed unconstitutional.

[iNow]

Indeed, but making laws <> overturning laws

[Endy0816]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

They should change the name of the US to the "Not-very United States" since they all seem to want different laws from the other states. That's why they need a political supreme court, making laws.

In the UK, the courts are there to "interpret" laws made by parliament, not to make new ones.

Popular Sovereignty vs Parliamentary Sovereignty.

US Constitution(Law), is above both the State/Federal governments. It both grants and restricts their respective powers.

Caveat: Constitution was designed to be a living document, so it can be changed.

Like iNow said though SC doesn't truly do the job of the House or Senate.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

The Supreme Court in the US is the same. They don’t make laws either. 

In disputed cases, other people might write the laws, but the supreme court make it law.

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Like iNow said though SC doesn't truly do the job of the House or Senate.

Sadly these days, neither do the house or senate. /rimshot

j/k… it’s mostly the senate that’s broken. House is okay, but screwed up due to gerrymandered districts and corrupted rejection of absentee ballots

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In disputed cases, other people might write the laws, but the supreme court make it law.

You’ll need to expand your point a bit here, mate. I’m fairly well tuned into and knowledgeable about how these things work in the US system, but don’t follow your intended meaning. 

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

don’t follow your intended meaning. 

Well, I thought that was obvious. In disputed cases, the supreme court decides what the law will be.

[iNow]

Which is neither making nor writing laws. It’s interpreting them, which you seem to be already aware of since you said the same thing yourself 7 hours ago.

Edited February 26, 2022 by iNow

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed, but making laws <> overturning laws

Fair enough.

[Endy0816]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Sadly these days, neither do the house or senate. /rimshot

j/k… it’s mostly the senate that’s broken. House is okay, but screwed up due to gerrymandered districts and corrupted rejection of absentee ballots

If a government is constantly keeping itself tied up in knots, it isn't setting up Tea Monoplies lol.

 

Am puzzled by focus on nominations vs confirmations here(and in general).

Edited February 26, 2022 by Endy0816

[mistermack]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Which is neither making nor writing laws. It’s interpreting them, which you seem to be already aware of since you said the same thing yourself 7 hours ago.

No, you've completely missed the point. The US Supreme Court is a POLITICAL body, they decide based on their own leanings, not on their expert legal opinion of what the law was designed to do. That's what makes them in effect law makers, rather than law interpreters. 

Everybody knows that that's what they do, even though the fiction is maintained otherwise. Presidents are appointing judges for their political leanings, that says all you need to know. Their title is judge, but they are really politicians, in effect the third house, and probably the one with the most power. 

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

No, you've completely missed the point.

Which is why I asked you to clarify it. Lol.

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The US Supreme Court is a POLITICAL body, they decide based on their own leanings, not on their expert legal opinion of what the law was designed to do

Can we not agree it’s based on both? This is what all judges do. They review, interpret, amd make judgements. It’s right there in the name confirming that their opinion is always involved in what they do. They “judge.”

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Their title is judge, but they are really politicians, in effect the third house, and probably the one with the most power. 

Which is why there are more than one of them on the bench. The check and balance is built right into the structure of the court itself.

Their individual power is restrained and personal motivations suppressed by the fact that other judges with different backgrounds and different motivations and different incentives must decide cases alongside them and the outcome of those cases is based on the majority consensus. 

Those with dissenting opinions also write those into the ruling and these dissents are often used to decide or inform future cases. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by iNow

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can we not agree it’s based on both? This is what all judges do. They review, interpret, amd make judgements. It’s right there in the name confirming that their opinion is always involved in what they do. They “judge.”

That becomes academic, when they are picked for their political leanings.

There were plenty of judges in Nazi Germany, and in Apartheid South Africa. North Korea has judges aplenty. They don't just "judge". They judge in a pre-determined way. 

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That becomes academic, when they are picked for their political leanings.

They’re picked for many reasons. Are you suggesting no other criteria are used other than their political leanings?

Can you provide a few examples of where judges get appointed by politicians but where political leaning played zero role in their selection? What about judges who get elected directly by the people? Are you saying there are zero politics involved in elections?

Were they maybe chosen based on a lottery or random number generator? I understand your point, but struggle aligning it with reality.

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There were plenty of judges in Nazi Germany, and in Apartheid South Africa. North Korea has judges aplenty. They don't just "judge". They judge in a pre-determined way. 

Right, but aren’t we discussing the United States here? We can usually predict how the justices will likely rule on specific cases, but there are almost always undecided justices in the middle where their opinion is uncertain and it’s a leap IMO to call the cases coming before them “predetermined.”

Edited February 26, 2022 by iNow

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, mistermack said:

they decide based on their own leanings, not on their expert legal opinion of what the law was designed to do.

Here is a major flaw in your understanding of how SCOTUS works. Justices are under no obligation to make decisions based on what the law was designed to do. Justices often make decisions based on the text of the law, and if the text does not match what the law was designed to do, they expect Congress to remedy their poor writing skills.

59 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Presidents are appointing judges for their political leanings, that says all you need to know

No. Presidents are appointing judges for their judicial philosophy, previous rulings, race, gender, thoughts on Roe v. Wade, thoughts on the Second Amendment, what state they come from, what they promised voters, whether or not they will get past the Senate, and a host of other reasons too long to list, that changes on a regular basis.

Presidents really don't care if the appointees are voting for Democrats or Republicans.

This is a much more nuanced process than you seem to think it is. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by zapatos

[mistermack]

I'm not saying they are black and white automatons, I'm just pointing to the differences between the UK supreme court, and the US one. 

The political nature of the US court is widely acknowledged. They may like to maintain the fiction that it's otherwise, but it's truly not. It's like the emperor's suit of clothes. Everyone knows he's naked, but they all talk and behave as if he's not. No supreme court judge would ackonowledge that they were picked for their bias, but everyone knows that they were. 

The proof of the pudding is the furore that kicks up with each appointment. Everyone knows why. 

[StringJunky]

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This is a much more nuanced process than you seem to think it is. 

I ask myself " Has there ever been such navel gazing and conflict every time the UK picks a judge? Is 'nuanced'  a polite way of saying "It's a mess"?

Edited February 26, 2022 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm not saying they are black and white automatons

Yes you are.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I ask myself " Has there ever been such navel gazing and conflict every time the UK picks a judge? Is 'nuanced'  a polite way of saying "It's a mess"?

No. It's a recognition that we didn't choose to follow your model and have the ability to make SCOTUS representative of the country.

[mistermack]

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

and have the ability to make SCOTUS representative of the country.

Exactly !!   Proper judges wouldn't need to be representative of the country, because they they would make their judgements IN SPITE OF their own political leanings. 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Exactly !!   Proper judges wouldn't need to be representative of the country, because they they would make their judgements IN SPITE OF their own political leanings. 

This may be an interesting idea to explore in another thread, but judgment is an act of interpretation. Our interpretations vary based on our own background and upbringing and even our genetics.

You really do appear to think judges are 100% objective robots driven by one’s and zeroes absent any bias, but that’s not the reality anywhere around the planet, even in your own system in your own country, no matter how highly you think of them. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by iNow

[StringJunky]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

This may be an interesting idea to explore in another thread, but judgment is an act of interpretation. Our interpretations vary based on our own background and upbringing and even our genetics.

You really do appear to think judges are 100% objective robots driven by one’s and zeroes absent any bias, but that’s not the reality anywhere around the planet, even in your own system in your own country, no matter how highly you think of them. 

The fact there isn't a fracas every time ia judge is chosen does say something positive for the UK system. It feels like many US people look at the rules and see how they can game them to their advantage... this is not cricket, old chap.

[Endy0816]

I'm of the opinion our courts are more like the UK's House of Lords in terms of their role in Society.

Most UK citizens seem broadly supportive of them despite the politics involved.

 

Is our law against singing while in a swimsuit unconstitutional? Case could be argued different ways. Despite many swearing oaths to it the Constitution has yet to say one word back, so who should decide?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The fact there isn't a fracas every time ia judge is chosen does say something positive for the UK system. It feels like many US people look at the rules and see how they can game them to their advantage... this is not cricket, old chap.

Maybe we’re just more open to vocalizing our frustrations here in the US than you lot who struggle even to tell one another you love them. Maybe this is a difference of cultural expression more than it’s a difference of judicial objectivity and jurisprudential purity. I’d agree we may have a greater degree of bias in our courts now, but cannot agree that your judges have none at all (at the risk of exaggerating stances and oversimplifying, if that makes sense, just making a point). 

[Endy0816]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The fact there isn't a fracas every time ia judge is chosen does say something positive for the UK system. It feels like many US people look at the rules and see how they can game them to their advantage... this is not cricket, old chap.

Chess game. Every piece on the board is in check to one degree or another.