05-30-2024, 01:48 PM
(05-30-2024, 01:30 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I think they all do and do their best to insulate their decisions from their political beliefs.
That said, when a decision goes against a given party, they are accused of partisan politics.
Roe being overturned.
States voting to take DJT off their ballots.
Multiple questions about the judge in DJT's case.
It's the best we got.
The main problem is that, for most people, judicial activism is a decision they don't like. This point is constantly misconstrued by many on this board, but the original Roe decision was a far more greater case of judicial activism than the decision overturning it. Saying a voluntary medical procedure falls under the 14th Amendments right to privacy is a huge stretch. Dobbs merely stated it was a issue for the states to decide, which fits far more neatly into the Constitution's standard that any power not directly ascribed to the federal government is the purview of the individual states.
IN another thread we had a poster bemoaning the two SCOTUS justices they believed thought the same as Butker, while ignoring the three liberal justices that largely think the exact same way they do. Why is one ok and the other not? because you like one and dislike the other. We certainly want our justices to be impartial while performing their job function, but outside of that they're allowed to have any opinion they want. Much like the judge in the NYC Trump case.
