• Djeece@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Which is so fucked. The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another. They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law, not give their own opinion on the matter.

    I remember here in Canada, back in the days of Harper, just how many times conservative appointed judges struck down conservative laws because they were unconstitutional.

    Whether they personally believe this or that shouldn’t even matter at all.

    • SovietShooter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another.

      Ideally, this is correct.

      They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law

      This is where the door is opened for partisan politics. In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted. The more progressive you are, the more you consider the intent and affects of the laws. Which is how you get folks hung up on terms like “Shall not infringe” or “shall make no law”.

      • diablexical@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted

        This is a myth conservatives want you to believe. In reality, they use the constitution and laws to protect but not bind themselves, while at the same time to bind but not protect others. In the state of Virginia today access to pornographic sites without ID verification was made illegal by Republicans. This example or any of the BS Desantis has pulled recently in Florida shows when aligned with their goals there is no hesitation to pass anti-constitutional measures.

        In the case of student loans - public education helps the out group, so any justification (constitutional or otherwise) will be used to attack it.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s basically what you said, but put another way:

        Strict interpretation allows the interpreter to ignore obvious context or intent in bad faith. It’s a way of shrugging off ambiguity in order to defend a status quo that they prefer.

    • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, the laws and constitution were written by a bunch of wig-sporting white guys who owned slaves, so I would say that the supreme court is doing a great job in keeping up with the “spirit of the law”.