SCOTUS rules firing LGBT people to be illegal

[Enoch the Red]

Of course not - the act when written was never intended to be applied this way. A court ruling is not good or bad in terms of who it helps or hurts but in how well they apply the law and the constitution.

Now fair is fair - if a supreme court ruling upheld what you would find to be bigotry and badness based on the textual reading of something - would you also support it as the correct ruling?

Doesn't your argument only hold if someone has accepted your first premise that consistency of approach in ruling takes primacy over all other considerations?

[Lewkowski]

Doesn't your argument only hold if someone has accepted your first premise that consistency of approach in ruling takes primacy over all other considerations?

Yes. If judges lack consistency of approach we've got a massive problem and I'm happy to discuss why it is important the highest court of the land actually attempts to be fair and impartial.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes. If judges lack consistency of approach we've got a massive problem and I'm happy to discuss why it is important the highest court of the land actually attempts to be fair and impartial.

You are asking RandBlade, who is not, as far as I know, a member of the US Supreme Court, if he would support a Supreme Court ruling that led to obvious negative outcomes for vulnerable people if the text of the law and constitution supported it.

First, if RandBlade is not a strict textualist, (he may or may not be) then there is no contradiction if he says he doesn't support such a thing.

Second, not being a member of the court, he can of course support or decry any ruling he likes, for any reason he likes. If he supports a ruling they have come up with for moral reasons instead of their strict adherence to your favored interpretation, why is that problematic to you?

Third, being fair and impartial might mean to someone else that they look beyond the text, or the original intent in order to render a verdict that is in alignment with those goals.

Fourth, for someone who claims to be all about consistency of approach, I haven't heard a lot out of you about prosecutorial discretion. Is a prosecutor who decides not to seek charges against a home owner who killed an intruder without first attempting to retreat, (in states where their laws have that as a requirement) being fair, impartial, and just, or simply inconsistent? What about a police officer who doesn't ruin the life of someone for possessing a little weed in states where it is illegal?

[Lewkowski]

You are asking RandBlade, who is not, as far as I know, a member of the US Supreme Court, if he would support a Supreme Court ruling that led to obvious negative outcomes for vulnerable people if the text of the law and constitution supported it.

First, if RandBlade is not a strict textualist, (he may or may not be) then there is no contradiction if he says he doesn't support such a thing.

Second, not being a member of the court, he can of course support or decry any ruling he likes, for any reason he likes. If he supports a ruling they have come up with for moral reasons instead of their strict adherence to your favored interpretation, why is that problematic to you?

Third, being fair and impartial might mean to someone else that they look beyond the text, or the original intent in order to render a verdict that is in alignment with those goals.

Fourth, for someone who claims to be all about consistency of approach, I haven't heard a lot out of you about prosecutorial discretion. Is a prosecutor who decides not to seek charges against a home owner who killed an intruder without first attempting to retreat, (in states where their laws have that as a requirement) being fair, impartial, and just, or simply inconsistent? What about a police officer who doesn't ruin the life of someone for possessing a little weed in states where it is illegal?

1. The question to RB is about if he would rule on the constitution and laws in a consistent way independent of impact. If he would not, that's a problem because it makes all of our inalienable rights paper thin.

2. Same answer is number 1 - cheer leading a court system that favors judges making decisions based on their political bias is faulty and would argue against that world view.

3. I'm in favor of looking at original intent. The purpose of the question is to see if RB supports textulaism in all cases or only when it fits his political agenda. Ultimately there can be an argument for a textualist perspective or intent perspective. The proof that it is genuine would be when you back rulings that cause negative outcomes based on adherence to that way of ruling.

4. Now that's actually an interesting question.

One major difference is that prosecutors are allowed an encouraged to use discretion. For example, if a person is already in prison for a life sentence in NY for murder it doesn't make sense for the Miami prosecutor to waste the court's time with theft charge. Or if a person is terminally ill and a court case will take longer than they have left alive. More often it is also a situation on "can beyond a reasonable doubt be proven" - this is tactical. A prosecutor who knowingly brings a case forward that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt needs to find a new job.

This is all VERY different compared to the judges who are ruling on what the law actually IS. To them we would them to have as perfect impartially as could possibly be. They should be as robotic as we can get because if we allow them to rule based on their own political preferences our essential rights become very threadbare.

For the police example - that completely depends on the department policies and relevant laws. In general I actually think police should avoid bias wherever possible by being as consistent as possible. We don't want police to decide "ehhh I don't agree with this law so I won't enforce it."