So, basically what you're saying is: enough judges are honest and try to actually follow the law, that if a dishonest and corrupt judge (let's call him "Antonin Scalia", hypothetically) makes up a new "rule" in order to give the case to the party who he wants to win...
...OTHER judges are going to apply the rule, whether he wanted them to or not. If you're a crooked judge, you can't rely on ALL the judges being crooked... they might take you at your word. Like they did with the rule Scalia made up in Bush v. Gore.
OK, that makes sense. But are the current political hacks sitting at the supreme court smart enough to understand that?
They seem to be gunning to overturn the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, and that's not even a question of precedent -- that's outright stare decisis, it's a decided case and it looks like they're trying to use a moot case to overturn the outcome in that specific case. We'll see if they do it. If they throw stare decisis out the window -- not just precedent, but stare decisis proper -- they're opening up the floodgates. Then any judge can overturn anything!
In earlier corrupt rulings, various supreme courts seem to have abandoned the principle "there is no right without a remedy" in favor of "you may have a right on paper but we will give you no remedy", which has arguably already ripped the heart out of the federal legal system (at least when it comes to the 4th and 14th amendments).
The current "court" backed off from taking a moot case in the NRA case but they were about to; and they're taking a moot case in their attempt to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. That is not just an abolishment of a legal principle, it's expressly against the explicit text of the Constitution! What consequences will come from that?
The recent nonsense rulings in the vaccine mandate cases have been condemned by scholars because there is no cognizable legal principle other than "how the judges feel about it". What effect is this going to have?
Do they simply think they can take the cases they care about for political posturing and hand them to their preferred winners (ruling on who's in the court, not the nature of the case) -- and do they just not care what sort of wreckage that will create in the lower courts?
There's a reason Sotomayor has been condemning the "majority" for ignoring precedent, facts, the text of the law, Congressional intent, logic, evidence, etc. in dissent after dissent. Even Roberts has been coming down on them for it. There were something like four of these utterly ridiculous lawless "rulings" in the last few months alone.
There are articles from law professors saying that they see no cognizable principles and that this appears to be pure results-oriented judginating.
And the bigger question: what do we do when the so-called supreme court is this evidently corrupt? It's not about the outcomes in individual cases at this point; this is unjudicial, unethical, *bad* behavior. "Judges... serve on good behavior", the Constitution says...
I don't expect a response; it's just something to think about. :-(
So, basically what you're saying is: enough judges are honest and try to actually follow the law, that if a dishonest and corrupt judge (let's call him "Antonin Scalia", hypothetically) makes up a new "rule" in order to give the case to the party who he wants to win...
...OTHER judges are going to apply the rule, whether he wanted them to or not. If you're a crooked judge, you can't rely on ALL the judges being crooked... they might take you at your word. Like they did with the rule Scalia made up in Bush v. Gore.
OK, that makes sense. But are the current political hacks sitting at the supreme court smart enough to understand that?
They seem to be gunning to overturn the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, and that's not even a question of precedent -- that's outright stare decisis, it's a decided case and it looks like they're trying to use a moot case to overturn the outcome in that specific case. We'll see if they do it. If they throw stare decisis out the window -- not just precedent, but stare decisis proper -- they're opening up the floodgates. Then any judge can overturn anything!
In earlier corrupt rulings, various supreme courts seem to have abandoned the principle "there is no right without a remedy" in favor of "you may have a right on paper but we will give you no remedy", which has arguably already ripped the heart out of the federal legal system (at least when it comes to the 4th and 14th amendments).
The current "court" backed off from taking a moot case in the NRA case but they were about to; and they're taking a moot case in their attempt to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. That is not just an abolishment of a legal principle, it's expressly against the explicit text of the Constitution! What consequences will come from that?
The recent nonsense rulings in the vaccine mandate cases have been condemned by scholars because there is no cognizable legal principle other than "how the judges feel about it". What effect is this going to have?
Do they simply think they can take the cases they care about for political posturing and hand them to their preferred winners (ruling on who's in the court, not the nature of the case) -- and do they just not care what sort of wreckage that will create in the lower courts?
There's a reason Sotomayor has been condemning the "majority" for ignoring precedent, facts, the text of the law, Congressional intent, logic, evidence, etc. in dissent after dissent. Even Roberts has been coming down on them for it. There were something like four of these utterly ridiculous lawless "rulings" in the last few months alone.
There are articles from law professors saying that they see no cognizable principles and that this appears to be pure results-oriented judginating.
And the bigger question: what do we do when the so-called supreme court is this evidently corrupt? It's not about the outcomes in individual cases at this point; this is unjudicial, unethical, *bad* behavior. "Judges... serve on good behavior", the Constitution says...
I don't expect a response; it's just something to think about. :-(