News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I hope people can admit that regardless of which political "side" judges are supporting, a judge allowing their political ideology to influence their decisions is a violation of their station. Judges are supposed to use their knowledge, expertise, and experience to rule on how our existing laws should be enforced, based on their original intent, sometimes in the context of circumstances their original authors didn't take into account. Obviously, the influence of one's political inclinations cannot be completely eliminated, but I feel like we've reached a point where judges—particularly those in our highest courts—are abusing their positions of power to advance their own political views. Sometimes, old laws do not make room for new circumstances, and new laws must be passed by legislative bodies instead of simply reinterpreting old laws for the convenience of modern times.
If our judges don't hold to these limitations and instead allow their political views to dictate their rulings, legal precedent ceases to have any meaning, and our laws will become nothing more than pendulums, the meaning of which will always depend on the justices in power at the time. This is not what the founders of our government intended and is no basis for a stable legal system regardless of their intent. This has to stop. If it continues, our legal system is steadily going to lose more and more credibility, and that is a surefire road to the disintegration of society into anarchy and war. This is exactly what our national enemies want.
Historically this is nothing new. Looking at SCOTUS alone, the Marshall court, the Taney court, and the Warren court are all examples of moments where the courts have moved jurisprudence in substantial ways based on ideology. You want justices that, for the most part, will exercise restraint and seek to interpret laws in good faith. I agree with that. But I think it’s important to know that courts have been ideological since the very beginning.
Fair point, which is why i conceded true ideological impartiality was impossible. Idk, maybe it's just me, but I'm 41 years old and I feel like partisanship in high courts in the U.S. has gotten much worse in the past decade or so.
Divide and conquer on steroids because of social media and LLMs.
Typical conservative response.
If you believed that, you wouldn't be voting for the right wing politicians.
I'm a liberal, and you're a disappointment.
Whatever helps you not change course
Uh... I'm genuinely curious how you got to that conclusion.
I'm not the person as you replied to, but I hope to introduce some additional information which might answer your question in case it was genuine.
The OP of this comment tree advocated for originalism ("based on their original intent") which up until about 20 years ago was generally considered incompatible with the responsibilities of a Judge. Typically, precedent is supposed to matter more than the laws original intent. Conservatives have been appointing originalists to the bench for a while now and it is leading to decisions like overturning Roe V. Wade. I can't do a good job explaining it in more detail, but you can search for "stare decisis vs originalism" to find more information. The results may be political so use your own intellectual filter.
It's possible that the OP didn't know that this is an originalists argument, but that's what the words currently state.