US Supreme Court - Why Should Politics Matter?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › US Supreme Court - Why Should Politics Matter?

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#279611 27-Oct-2020 11:42

This is probably a very naïve question.

The US Supreme court of 9 justices now has a 6-3 conservative majority. But why is it framed in a political way like this, and should it matter?

Surely it should be about impartial interpretation of the law regardless of the justices personal or political views?

1 | 2

2893 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

#2592400 27-Oct-2020 12:53

But, this is America, where should and would get mixed up.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41025

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2592401 27-Oct-2020 12:58

Paul1977:

Surely it should be about impartial interpretation of the law regardless of the justices personal or political views?

Different mindsets have different interpretations. A conservative justice is more likely to overthrow some rights such as abortion and healthcare.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2592412 27-Oct-2020 13:34

Paul1977:

This is probably a very naïve question.

The US Supreme court of 9 justices now has a 6-3 conservative majority. But why is it framed in a political way like this, and should it matter?

Surely it should be about impartial interpretation of the law regardless of the justices personal or political views?

Interpretation of the law takes many different forms, especially when it is heavily built on a supreme law document that is ~230 years old.

e.g the current candidate ( now confirmed) is what is know as an "originalist" who believes that interpretations of the US constitution should be based on understandings at the time it was adopted.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2592653 28-Oct-2020 10:14

In the US people in government appointed roles are generally overt about their political allegiances. This includes judges, and 'judicial activism' is a real thing.

That's unusual to us in NZ. We expect public servants to be politically neutral. In reality most people have political views and therefore personal bias. In the US it's overt and substantial. In NZ it's covert and of lower magnitude (we hope).

There is research that suggests psychological differences between conservatives and liberals. Here is a Wikipedia page from which anyone interested can use a starting point to find studies etc. Even if people are endeavouring to be politically neutral, their political view is reflected in their psychology and therefore their world view. This raises the question to what extent political preferences are choice vs biology.

On balance I think it's better to have people overtly state their political allegiances (if they have one). I think the issue in the US is that partisanship can allow political allegiance to overtake the primary function of a person's role.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2592671 28-Oct-2020 11:08

MikeAqua:

This raises the question to what extent political preferences are choice vs biology.

Doesn't raise that question to me. If you're suggesting that some "heritable trait" has some influence on "political preferences", then you're going to have to ignore vast evidence about the large impact of environment etc - "nurture" as opposed to "nature".

That's not to say that some personality traits aren't heritable to some extent, but you're probably looking at correlations between things like lack of empathy due to recognised "disorders" having a possible impact on political preferences, not the general population.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2592708 28-Oct-2020 12:13

Paul1977:

Surely it should be about impartial interpretation of the law regardless of the justices personal or political views?

It matters very simply because many of the Neanderthals nominated by "conservative" Presidents are the sorts of people who would defend executing the mentally ill, dissent against rulings banning execution of those under 15 at the time of their offending (see Scalia's dissent in Thompson v Oklahoma), help sustain rulings that under 18s may be executed (see Scalia, again), heavily restrict abortions, undermine environmental protections, and generally defending the powerful's abuse of fundamental civilised social norms.

If that's not enough to care about for you, then I am afraid nothing will change your mind.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2592713 28-Oct-2020 12:26

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

This raises the question to what extent political preferences are choice vs biology.

Doesn't raise that question to me. If you're suggesting that some "heritable trait" has some influence on "political preferences", then you're going to have to ignore vast evidence about the large impact of environment etc - "nurture" as opposed to "nature".

That's not to say that some personality traits aren't heritable to some extent, but you're probably looking at correlations between things like lack of empathy due to recognised "disorders" having a possible impact on political preferences, not the general population.

Fred99 is right. In the US especially (but this is largely replicated across the western world), educational attainment -- which obviously also tends to correlate with higher intelligence -- is unmistakably linked with more progressive worldviews. In other words, conservatism (especially in the very extreme forms practiced in the US) is mostly the preserve of the stupid and educated. The educated and well-read who advocate conservative views just rely on useful idiots buying into their crap to help keep the former at the top.

Look at this and this as examples.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2593021 29-Oct-2020 08:55

dejadeadnz:

It matters very simply because many of the Neanderthals nominated by "conservative" Presidents are the sorts of people who would defend executing the mentally ill, dissent against rulings banning execution of those under 15 at the time of their offending (see Scalia's dissent in Thompson v Oklahoma), help sustain rulings that under 18s may be executed (see Scalia, again), heavily restrict abortions, undermine environmental protections, and generally defending the powerful's abuse of fundamental civilised social norms.

If that's not enough to care about for you, then I am afraid nothing will change your mind.

It obviously does matter, my question was more about SHOULD it matter - and that they shouldn't be political positions. I probably didn't realise they had such power in shaping the law either.

It seems like just another example of how broken the US is if you can pretty much predict the ruling based solely on the make-up of the court.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2593076 29-Oct-2020 09:32

Paul1977:

I probably didn't realise they had such power in shaping the law either.

They're not supposed to "shape" the law - only rule on how the law is interpreted.

How it's reported is also highly partisan. Example - Kavanaugh's opinion on Wisconsin voting deadline in response to Democrat-led court challenge to the state not extending a deadline to counting late votes.

As I understand it, Kavanaugh is probably correct, it's up to the states to legislate, thus the US Supreme Court can't force the state to extend the deadline. The law probably needs to be changed - in Wisconsin by Wisconsin.

Meanwhile the "big picture" is this is happening while a POTUS has (mis)used his executive power to hobble the postal system, as part of a concerted effort to sabotage the democratic process.

Then the background is that a reason why a new POTUS is sworn in months after the election date is historical, counting and collating nationally was originally in a time where the ballots would have been moved on foot or on horseback. There's no reason why late (received) votes shouldn't be counted - there's plenty of time to do it and no deadline before Jan 20.

gzt

18671 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7806

Lifetime subscriber

#2593077 29-Oct-2020 09:34

Originalism has some thorny problems to contend with. Imo an originalist court is unlikely to have abolished slavery for example and unlikely to have allowed the later desegregation. Originalism does have an argument that is not the case but it's far from cut and dried.

https://www.google.com/search?q=originalism+isn%27t+what+you+think+it+js

Having said that, I do tend to agree with Scalia when he said something along the lines of many of today's contentious cases would not exist if the government of the united states actually passed clear legislation. The USA electoral cycle is somewhere near 12 years long which means compromise and half a generation before anything really changes and plenty of time to do nothing much imo. USA voters really have to keep a eye on the ball for a long long time..

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2593342 29-Oct-2020 14:50

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

This raises the question to what extent political preferences are choice vs biology.

Doesn't raise that question to me. If you're suggesting that some "heritable trait" has some influence on "political preferences", then you're going to have to ignore vast evidence about the large impact of environment etc - "nurture" as opposed to "nature".

That's not to say that some personality traits aren't heritable to some extent, but you're probably looking at correlations between things like lack of empathy due to recognised "disorders" having a possible impact on political preferences, not the general population.

I didn't say anything about heritability. The nature-nuture dichotomy is out-dated thinking. It's almost always both and often an interaction.

using as an example a couple of positive personality traits: Conservatives tend to be higher in trait-conscientiousness, liberals tend higher in trait-openness.

Mike

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2593471 29-Oct-2020 16:15

MikeAqua:

I didn't say anything about heritability. The nature-nuture dichotomy is out-dated thinking. It's almost always both and often an interaction.

using as an example a couple of positive personality traits: Conservatives tend to be higher in trait-conscientiousness, liberals tend higher in trait-openness.

Fair enough.

A new study adds to growing evidence that political persuasions are closely linked to personality traits, and therefore may be determined early in life.

Oh but then:
"People who score low in conscientiousness tend to view rules and regulations as restricting, limiting, and confining. They may not feel responsible for anyone other than themselves. Consequently, low scorers may be viewed as irresponsible and insubordinate."

That seems to quite accurately describe the entire US Republican Party - so who are the "conservatives"?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2593499 29-Oct-2020 17:24

Fred99:

They're not supposed to "shape" the law - only rule on how the law is interpreted.

How it's reported is also highly partisan. Example - Kavanaugh's opinion on Wisconsin voting deadline in response to Democrat-led court challenge to the state not extending a deadline to counting late votes.

Adding to this, SCOTUS has ruled that North Carolina can count ballots received up to 9 days after the election. Kavanaugh voted with the 5:3 majority decision - to support the NC Board of Elections decision to extend the deadline from 3 days to nine. This went against Republican action to try to stop deadline extension.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2593799 30-Oct-2020 08:57

dejadeadnz:

In the US especially (but this is largely replicated across the western world), educational attainment -- which obviously also tends to correlate with higher intelligence -- is unmistakably linked with more progressive worldviews. In other words, conservatism (especially in the very extreme forms practiced in the US) is mostly the preserve of the stupid and educated. The educated and well-read who advocate conservative views just rely on useful idiots buying into their crap to help keep the former at the top.

Look at this and this as examples.

You agreed with Fred that biological traits don't influence political view, and then claimed that intelligence (a biological trait) does influence political view ...

There is a certain snobbery that says a person who didn't do well in formal education isn't intelligent. There can be many reasons why formal education doesn't suit or interest an intelligent person.

There are also different forms of intelligence. Not all are catered to well by formal education, especially university education. Is a guy who can strip down and rebuild an engine blindfolded (hyperbole) more or less intelligent than an emeritus professors who can't operate an overhead projector (actual example)? I've known fellows of the royal society who couldn't be trusted with basic household finances. You also have to consider that universities actively push people toward liberal world views, especially in North America.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2593828 30-Oct-2020 10:09

MikeAqua:

You agreed with Fred that biological traits don't influence political view, and then claimed that intelligence (a biological trait) does influence political view ...

Simmer down. If two people took a meaning from what you'd said implied "heritable traits" rather than "biological traits", then maybe you weren't clear enough.

1 | 2