Post AKxDoMXuTyTCIOmwK0 by Parienve@qoto.org
 (DIR) More posts by Parienve@qoto.org
 (DIR) Post #AKwvTyHVBpcg4dEz0C by urusan@fosstodon.org
       2022-06-28T14:02:05Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       So much for conservatives being against "activist judges".If the US supreme court is undoubtedly an "activist" organization that's involved in the creation and amendment of legislation, then it stands to reason that it needs to be a directly elected representative of the people.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKwvxgCYyS9kgj632O by amerika@noagendasocial.com
       2022-06-28T14:07:30Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan All it is doing now is undoing a couple centuries of activist courts by returning to the only sane way to read the Constitution, originalism.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKwwC7zmQyJowY0UVc by LunaDragofelis@embracing.space
       2022-06-28T14:10:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan or maybe, society should be restructured to eliminate any positions of that much power.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKwyF0bgYqTknyEpfM by Beef@social.freetalklive.com
       2022-06-28T14:33:01Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan What do you mean by activist?  The conservative argument is that the right to abortion was invented, meaning that the judges actively asserted a brand new right.  If that was an error, then it's correct to undo the error.It's constitutional, not activist, to pull back from the decisions of activist judges.  It would be activist for the court to ban abortion nationwide.  This court did not do that.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKx4m7zYiweozTa3UW by urusan@fosstodon.org
       2022-06-28T15:46:15Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Beef I'm not going to get into the details of that argument, since there's two much more obviously anti-constitution rulings that won't take all day to argue about.Allowing the establishment of a religion by an authority in a public institution is an activist ruling.Requiring the state to fund religious institutions is an even more activist ruling. State funding isn't free speech, so this ruling is completely incoherent from a constitutional perspective.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKx8Mv9lhxGbl9akd6 by Azure@tailswish.industries
       2022-06-28T16:26:31.305988Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan Jacobin has been arguing for ripping the quasi-legislative 'judicial review' function out for years.(Part of the issue is that our actual elected body isn't good at doing anything, so we end up with judicial review and executive orders as the only actual ways to accomplish things.)https://jacobin.com/2022/02/judicial-review-democracy-liberals-minorities-breyer-warren-biden
       
 (DIR) Post #AKx8UfbhP8ofqmLpo0 by Azure@tailswish.industries
       2022-06-28T16:27:56.376703Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. I rather like that the courts can strike down things that flagrantly violate constitutional rights.On the other hand, this seems like it would work better in another reality where the constitution weren't rather shoddily constructed.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKxCv5KcmcZyynDRKK by Beef@social.freetalklive.com
       2022-06-28T17:17:30Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan I'm unfamiliar with either of these cases, and you haven't named them for me to look up, so I can't talk about them until I know what they are.
       
 (DIR) Post #AKxDoMXuTyTCIOmwK0 by Parienve@qoto.org
       2022-06-28T17:27:29Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @urusan To me, the underlying issue is that justices will decide what their ruling will be first, then figure out how to support it after the fact in an opinion, using ideas like originalism, pragmatism, and even minimalism as rhetorical weapons instead of as tools to guide their decisions. It's intellectually dishonest.