tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post2932838020162310187..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: The Supreme Court has Always been PoliticalJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-79278023079406795022022-06-27T12:38:24.654-04:002022-06-27T12:38:24.654-04:00The Supreme Court is an autocracy within a democra...The Supreme Court is an autocracy within a democracy. It can overrule any majority, even super majorities. That's always troublesome, but it becomes particularly troublesome when it finds things in the constitution that aren't there to support their judgment -- and no person or institution can do anything about it. I have no doubt the original ruling was legal poppycock, but it served a growing social need. Friday's ruling ignores social need in favor of the purity of legal thery. We'll see which court got it right. <br /><br />But I don't care about the judicial and legal philosophies governing Friday's ruling. I care that the court for 50 years trained us to believe that something important was a certain way, and then Friday said, "Never mind, we were wrong 50 years ago, and now we are right. Carry on -- Next Case," leaving a mess for everyone else to sort through. What irresponsible asses! Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-59586306268824097632022-06-27T10:45:18.362-04:002022-06-27T10:45:18.362-04:00It occurs to me that, over time, I've noticed ...It occurs to me that, over time, I've noticed some odd things about the titles of opinion pieces, at least in the NYT online. The titles of individual pieces seem to change from time to time, and they often don't really mirror the arguments in the article (at least IMO). So I wonder if here we're looking more at an experiment in clickbaiting than an argument about the Supreme Court. I haven't bothered to read the column itself; in the past, I haven't been much impressed by Peter Coy. Of course, he has a Times column, and I do not. But I save my attention for other things.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-72665236843804427352022-06-27T09:47:15.158-04:002022-06-27T09:47:15.158-04:00To be fair, that was the title of an opinion piece...To be fair, that was the title of an opinion piece, so not strictly a headline (as I understand the term's meaning).<br /><br />I think the NYT's news coverage has been pretty good, including the Alito "Methodical Strategy" article and the one about how the Tea Party "Red Wave" election of 2010 started the process that led to this point.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-13138013018429714632022-06-27T07:48:47.496-04:002022-06-27T07:48:47.496-04:00I think, perhaps, this is a case of media outlets ...I think, perhaps, this is a case of media outlets like the New York Times being too timid to speak the truth, and therefor speaking via euphemism.<br /><br />This is not an issue of the court being "political" / "politicized".<br /><br />This is an issue of naked political corruption - of the Republicans obstructing the appointment of a replacement judge during the late Obama administration, and then turning around and rushing through their own appointment in the late Trump administration; of multiple sitting supreme court justices having blatantly lied under oath in order to secure their nominations; of one justice being nominated and appointed despite being a sexual predator, and of another justice being complicit <i>in a literal coup against the government</i>.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has not been "politicized" - it has been corrupted.<br /><br />You are correct that virtually every major ruling is political in some regard - but what has NOT historically been the case is the stacking of the court via obviously underhanded tactics, and the openly inappropriate conduct of its sitting members paired with a Congressional willingness to turn a blind eye to such matters.<br /><br /><i>That</i> is the source of the court's delegitimazation. And it is a Pandora's Box that the Republicans will rue opening, for they have succeeded in fundamentally eroding our country's trust in the highest judicial court in all the land, and there's no going back from that.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com