Gold Supporting Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- Reaction score
- Near Magnolia, TX
Everyone on the court tries to push the country to meet their visions though judicial decisions. Why else would anyone speak of "conservative judges," "liberal judges," and "activist judges"? Potential nominees listed by trump are not a diverse group in terms of political and social thought, so the list must have been compiled with expected outcomes in mind.RGB had no judicial philosophy, she tried to push the country to meet her vision through judicial decisions. That's not the purpose of the court. Of course it our fault for allowing the court to assume so much power.
I read the transcript of oral argument in the case of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to a Texas law imposing safety requirements on abortion providers. I noticed that the justices considered "conservative" asked only procedural questions of the Texas solicitor general, and not one asked him a single question regarding the substance of the law, which is what I expect a justice to do. It came out that abortions were considered safer than colonoscopies, which were not subject to the same "safety" requirements, and the solicitor general even said that women who lived a great distance from the only clinic in compliance should go to New Mexico for their abortions.
Why would they ask question about a law they've already read and had tons of briefs on? Also a judge that allows their personal opinions to override the law and the Constitution should never be on the bench. Scalia was a great justice, but I disagreed with some of his rulings regarding federal powers.