[ETH_start]

Later rulings supersede previous ones because later rulings review their precedents and will correct mistakes that they identify in their precedents, so if a later ruling found those earlier rulings incorrect in their application of the law, we assume there was in fact a misjudgment in those older rulings. The justices provided legal reasoning in overturning Roe vs Wade and the Chevron doctrine, and unless you find some glaring mistake in that reasoning, the default assumption should be that the rulings to overturn these doctrines were legally sound.

[consteval]

This completely ignores the political motivations for rulings. In my opinion, a person who does not at least try to address the obvious partisanism of our current court is not worth listening to.

Please keep in mind some justices have gone as far as recommending revisiting rulings on same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. We cannot continue to play stupid.

[ETH_start]

There is no obvious political motivation. You're simply assuming that a ruling that is favored by the political camp you identify with could only be overruled due to political motivations, which is not sound reasoning, and only reveals your own political motivations.

[consteval]

No, I'm reasoning based on the history of these judges and the extreme conservative stances that they are, in fact, politically motivated. Not to mention they're not anywhere close to consistent in their views. On one hand, they're extremely textualist and will routinely shut down power for other branches of government. On the other, when it comes time to save Trump, of course they then declare former presidents have absolute immunity.

Once again, if you're not able to at least begin to acknowledge the obvious political biases of our current court, you're not worth talking to. There's no point in arguing with dishonest people, because they can just lie when they feel like they're losing. As a side note, playing stupid is also a form of dishonesty. I don't really care if you "know nothing", if that's the case then don't bother speaking.

[ETH_start]

Being "extremely conservative" in their rulings has no relevance to the likelihood of them being politically motivated. It's entirely possible that the Constitution itself is "extremely conservative", given the well known commitment of the framers of the Constitution to limiting the power of the federal government through Constitutional restraints, and the 130 years of judicial history during which the SCOTUS consistently ruled the way the current SCOTUS is ruling on cases.

[consteval]

> Being "extremely conservative" in their rulings has no relevance to the likelihood of them being politically motivated

> It's entirely possible that the Constitution itself is "extremely conservative"

No, because they aren't actually textualists. Only when it can be used to propagate a republican agenda. Then, suddenly, they're not textualists otherwise.

I'm saying their lack of consistency in constitutional interpretation, combined with their extreme consistency with ruling that help current republican and conservatives' agendas, demonstrates they are politically motivated.

You would have to be both blind and deaf to legitimately believe this court is interpreting the constitution in good faith. Expanding the powers of the president to such an unprecedented and downright monarchic degree? Really? Let's not play stupid.

[ETH_start]

>No, because they aren't actually textualists. Only when it can be used to propagate a republican agenda. Then, suddenly, they're not textualists otherwise.

Throwing out accusations of judicial corruption without evidence is reckless and, frankly, undermines the integrity of any meaningful critique you may hope to offer. These are not trivial charges; alleging that the highest court is driven by pure partisanship demands a comprehensive in-depth analysis to back it up. To fling out these accusations without doing that is irresponsible. It reeks of partisan hackery.

If you want to be taken seriously on a subject as critical as judicial bias, then do the work and come prepared with more than superficial evidence.

[zaptheimpaler]

This is again assuming that there is a binary right or wrong in how the law is applied. This is an ideal of the law, where there is precisely one law that applies to any given situation, describing exactly what is legal or not, with no ambiguity or contradiction. Speak to any lawyer or read about it, and you will find this is not true.

Here's a random article i came across today speaking about the ambiguity in the law applied to a particular case - https://archive.is/Z6V2Q . Just something I came across randomly, this is not uncommon. A quote:

> “I know it seems kind of strange that there isn’t a definitive answer to this, but that’s because the rule is based on a principle that can be applied in lots of different contexts, and it just happens that it hasn’t often been applied in this context before,” she said.

Here is a quote directly from the ruling overturning Chevron:

> Finally, the view that interpretation of ambiguous statutory provi- sions amounts to policymaking suited for political actors rather than courts is especially mistaken because it rests on a profound misconcep- tion of the judicial role. Resolution of statutory ambiguities involves legal interpretation, and that task does not suddenly become policy- making just because a court has an “agency to fall back on.” Kisor, 588 U. S., at 575. Courts interpret statutes, no matter the context, based on the traditional tools of statutory construction, not individual policy preferences.

In other words, the court directly saying that it is their job to resolve legal ambiguities.

The logic you provide to uphold the overturning of Roe vs. Wade should apply just as well to the original Roe vs. Wade too. There was not any "glaring mistake" in the reasoning, there's just a lot of room for subjectivity.

[ETH_start]

The assumption of judicial law is that there is an objective correct answer and that later rulings are more likely to arrive at it than their precedents.

The passage you quote does not contradict this. Note it states that court interpretation is

"based on the traditional tools of statutory construction, not individual policy preferences"

The ambiguity means that the correctness is a matter of probability, which implies that the probability of making a correct ruling increases with the amount of precedent a ruling has to fall back on.

[adamc]

Great! And after we pack the court full of liberals, I'm sure you'll be on-board with every ruling.

[ETH_start]

The whole point of winning presidencies is to appoint justices when one retires or passes away.

Packing the court, i.e. expanding the court to obviate the need to wait for a justice to retire or die in order to appoint a new one, on the other hand, effectively eliminates the independence of the judiciary, by nullifying the independence that Supreme Court justices obtain as a result of their lifetime tenure.

[adamc]

The rulings overturned will be sound, by your own rubric.

And that has not, historically, been "the whole point of winning presidencies".

[ETH_start]

Later rulings are more likely to be sound, by judicial logic. The entire system of judicial law rests on that assumption.

And one of the rewards of winning presidential elections is being able to replace the justices that retire or die..