I understand the two approaches but need they exist exclusive of each other? The Court is not outcomes-driven, which I call result-oriented? But don't the justices' upbringings, backgrounds, and experiences affect their decision-making? Of course, they do. In this manner, don't the justices simply rule consistent with their beliefs, then (strive to) find a textual basis to support their predispositions? I can't believe Justice Alito said what he did, divorced from his beliefs and solely in reliance on textual considerations. I agree with the two approaches you described; I just think they converge a bit more than you suggest. Either way, bravo and another splendid essay!!!
Radical ideology or merely different from the Left? If SCOTUS is radical, easy solution is for Congress to legislate. Wonder why it hasn’t and won’t even with Obama super majority. Maybe not so radical after all……except, of course, to the Left.
I think I know who wrote this comment, but even if I'm right I will honor your apparent preference for anonymity. My main point was that the decision stemmed from an underlying ideology, not just an outcomes-driven, case-by-case approach with no ideological underpinnings. But I did use the word "radical," so your criticism is a fair one. I do consider the Court's sharp tack to the right radical, though, for a number of reasons. First, any time a court majority undoes decades of jurisprudence in areas such as constitutional and administrative law, and especially when it does so without apparent regard for how that immense undoing is going to affect real people, organizations, and infrastructures that have come to rely on and been built around that jurisprudence, I'd say that's pretty radical. Second, the radical ideology reflected in these decisions is that federal courts have a very limited role in protecting individual liberty, leaving the existence and scope of such protections to the states (except when it comes to guns and religion), that federal agencies with expertise in specific regulatory areas (e.g., environmental protection) have a very limited ability to interpret the scope of the authority that Congress entrusted to them and to exercise that authority, and that a change in the composition of the Court gives the new majority free rein to take away rights their predecessors had previously recognized. One can choose to agree or disagree with these decisions, but it's hard to envision them as anything other than radical.
Radical to reinforce separation of powers by overturning radical and egregious unconstitutional judicial lawmaking? Politics trumps Constitution? Hard to envision that as anything but radical.
I, too, can’t believe Alito’s radical opinion that limited judicial power in favor of state legislatures accountable to voters. Radical indeed in a democratic republic, except to the Left, its 72 genders, and Lia Thomas.
I understand the two approaches but need they exist exclusive of each other? The Court is not outcomes-driven, which I call result-oriented? But don't the justices' upbringings, backgrounds, and experiences affect their decision-making? Of course, they do. In this manner, don't the justices simply rule consistent with their beliefs, then (strive to) find a textual basis to support their predispositions? I can't believe Justice Alito said what he did, divorced from his beliefs and solely in reliance on textual considerations. I agree with the two approaches you described; I just think they converge a bit more than you suggest. Either way, bravo and another splendid essay!!!
I agree Dan. I tried to avoid saying they were mutually exclusive. Thanks for your insights!
Radical ideology or merely different from the Left? If SCOTUS is radical, easy solution is for Congress to legislate. Wonder why it hasn’t and won’t even with Obama super majority. Maybe not so radical after all……except, of course, to the Left.
I think I know who wrote this comment, but even if I'm right I will honor your apparent preference for anonymity. My main point was that the decision stemmed from an underlying ideology, not just an outcomes-driven, case-by-case approach with no ideological underpinnings. But I did use the word "radical," so your criticism is a fair one. I do consider the Court's sharp tack to the right radical, though, for a number of reasons. First, any time a court majority undoes decades of jurisprudence in areas such as constitutional and administrative law, and especially when it does so without apparent regard for how that immense undoing is going to affect real people, organizations, and infrastructures that have come to rely on and been built around that jurisprudence, I'd say that's pretty radical. Second, the radical ideology reflected in these decisions is that federal courts have a very limited role in protecting individual liberty, leaving the existence and scope of such protections to the states (except when it comes to guns and religion), that federal agencies with expertise in specific regulatory areas (e.g., environmental protection) have a very limited ability to interpret the scope of the authority that Congress entrusted to them and to exercise that authority, and that a change in the composition of the Court gives the new majority free rein to take away rights their predecessors had previously recognized. One can choose to agree or disagree with these decisions, but it's hard to envision them as anything other than radical.
Radical to reinforce separation of powers by overturning radical and egregious unconstitutional judicial lawmaking? Politics trumps Constitution? Hard to envision that as anything but radical.
Well written, as always
I, too, can’t believe Alito’s radical opinion that limited judicial power in favor of state legislatures accountable to voters. Radical indeed in a democratic republic, except to the Left, its 72 genders, and Lia Thomas.