Like so many others, I think the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court was already bad enough on its own, and of course the nomination and predictable confirmation of Associate Justice Coney Barrett only worsened the issue, but until reading this I actually did not know that Justice Coney Barrett had, to quote the author, "pledged to continue her mentor's [former Associate Justice Scalia's] work." This makes me sick. I mean, what happened to impartiality as a bedrock principle of justice? What are the implications of a legal system that is based on political sway in lieu of impartiality, from the very top (SCOTUS) down? And why is impartiality still taught to young students who learn about SCOTUS for the first time, when in demonstrable reality SCOTUS today is anything but impartial? Should we remove the blindfold from the Lady Justice statue's eyes? It seems to me that few Americans realize how scary and draconian things could be due to multiple decades of a conservative supermajority (hell, even just a plain ol' regular majority!) in the judicial branch. Many thanks to the author for informing me of this. Time to find that 'Subscribe' button...
Definitely happy to have you on board! I think what is interesting about Barrett, lo these many months later, is that she seems to be taking great care to not be ideological on some issues (vaccine mandates, for example.) And one is reminded of Sandra Day O'Conner, who was treated with great suspicion, and turned out to be quite moderate. But Barrett is certainly no Thomas, and perhaps not even a Scalia. It will be interesting to see what happens when they get another LGBTQ rights case.
Like so many others, I think the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court was already bad enough on its own, and of course the nomination and predictable confirmation of Associate Justice Coney Barrett only worsened the issue, but until reading this I actually did not know that Justice Coney Barrett had, to quote the author, "pledged to continue her mentor's [former Associate Justice Scalia's] work." This makes me sick. I mean, what happened to impartiality as a bedrock principle of justice? What are the implications of a legal system that is based on political sway in lieu of impartiality, from the very top (SCOTUS) down? And why is impartiality still taught to young students who learn about SCOTUS for the first time, when in demonstrable reality SCOTUS today is anything but impartial? Should we remove the blindfold from the Lady Justice statue's eyes? It seems to me that few Americans realize how scary and draconian things could be due to multiple decades of a conservative supermajority (hell, even just a plain ol' regular majority!) in the judicial branch. Many thanks to the author for informing me of this. Time to find that 'Subscribe' button...
Definitely happy to have you on board! I think what is interesting about Barrett, lo these many months later, is that she seems to be taking great care to not be ideological on some issues (vaccine mandates, for example.) And one is reminded of Sandra Day O'Conner, who was treated with great suspicion, and turned out to be quite moderate. But Barrett is certainly no Thomas, and perhaps not even a Scalia. It will be interesting to see what happens when they get another LGBTQ rights case.