SCOTUS become politicized vs. not ruling according to people's preferences

[Martin_Hyde]

@k9bfriender

The fact that the probably didn’t cross the line into actual perjury, and even if they did, they would face no consequence isn’t what is at issue here. What is at issue is that we have these weaselly and deceptive people on SCOTUS. And not that there is much that we can do about it, I just didn’t expect it to be considered to be so acceptable.

Maybe the core disagreement is that I don’t think they are weaselly. I think there is genuine, active virtue in judges not promising to rule a certain way during a confirmation hearing. Once you cross into that the judiciary is literally just a super-legislature. That is the opposite direction from how I want justices to head.

I also think most of these justices were well understood to be in favor of overturning Roe; and I don’t think anything any of them said in their confirmation hearings meaningfully called that into question. Alito had a history as a federal judge in frequently either ruling in favor of abortion restrictions or being in the minority on the circuit court in writing opinions in favor of abortion restrictions. Further, Alito’s response to a question by Dianne Feinstein about Roe during his confirmation hearing was, in my mind–quite clear:

Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.

"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, ‘If you bring your case before my court, I’m not even going to listen to you. I’ve made up my mind on this issue. I’m not going to read your brief. I’m not going to listen to your argument. I’m not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I’ve made up my mind,’ " he said.

That is pretty clearly him saying “I’m not going to say that any matter is unambiguously permanently settled law”, and that is entirely within the norm for a Supreme Court justice–the justices of the court have the power to set precedent, they are not bound by prior precedent. That’s really a pretty simple reality. I think some liberals feel like the judges should have to make a pledge to not overturn Roe, that it’s a special case more meaningful than all of the rest of the constitution and the history of court precedents. I can’t agree with that. Roe is a valid target for ongoing litigation, just like all previous Supreme Court decisions are. If Alito had said he would never overrule existing precedent, that would be a lie. But I do not really think it is deceptive to say that you’ll give due deference to precedent but will ultimately consider and decide on a case-by-case basis. If people are frankly too stupid to understand that means you might overturn precedent, those people should probably not be United States Senators. I am quite content putting out the claim if even one person in the United States Senate did not understand Alito was a vote to overturn Roe, that person was stupid.

[puzzlegal]

Well, some judges think the court had become a lot more politicized than in the past

Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar in a Letter to John Roberts

Here are a couple of quotes from his letter:

Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.

The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.