Addicted to wanting particular outcomes
Clarence Thomas tells us he will not be bullied.
Following protests sparked by the leak of a draft U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating the justices are poised to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said on Friday that the court cannot be “bullied.”
We know. That’s the nature of the Court: once they’re there, we’re stuck with them (barring impeachment, which is vanishingly rare).
Thomas, one of the most conservative justices on the nine-member court, made only a few passing references to the protests over the leaked draft opinion as he spoke at a judicial conference in Atlanta.
As a society, “we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” Thomas said.
Oh yes, unlike all those other societies that don’t want particular outcomes. Which societies would those be exactly? Is there a list?
“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”
Therefore the Dred Scott ruling was okie doke, yes?
Yeah and Thomas has been addicted to the outcome of overturning Roe v Wade. He and his fellow conservative judges were appointed by people addicted to certain outcomes and determined to get them.
And pardon me, but last time I checked, this was a representative democracy, where leaders are supposed to represent the people. I’m not saying the people are always right, but for five justices to overrule what the majority of the public wants seems pretty cavalier.
Undesirable outcomes are more palatable and justifiable when made while following a set of consistent rules…
Pretty sure there’s bipartisan agreement that shit isn’t remotely fair even if the specifics are in doubt.
Well, you know, it depends. Majorities can be wrong – morally wrong as well as just mistaken. The idea of a supreme court is that the justices will somehow be able to soar above the mistakes of majoritarian thinking. In life it doesn’t always play out that way, to say the least, but there have been times when the Court was [morally] right when the [or a] majority wasn’t. Brown v Board was wildly controversial at the time.
Yeah, I get that, and when the majority goes a different way than we do, we cheer the court doing what we think is right. I don’t actually believe much in majority rule, since so much of the majority doesn’t bother to find out what the issues are and who stands where. This is one of those huge ethical dilemmas, and I have never resolved it in my own mind – do our representatives follow what we want, or do they make the decisions they feel are best? Overall, I feel like they should operate within the parameters of what is best for society, which sometimes will be what the majority want and other times won’t be. Unfortunately, there is huge disagreement on what is best for society, and people will follow the evidence they like best.
Well gee, maybe you could talk to your wife about helping to overturn the 2020 presidential election then, right? And from there, you could address Congressional Republicans, and the seditionists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Glad that’s sorted.
Oh, jeez, good catch, I didn’t even think of that aspect.
iknklast @ 4 – same – it’s a constant wibble wobbling back and forth.
1776:
Is not our situation the result of representatives’ betraying the people in just that fashion? If we’re talking about gender nonsense, the obeisance to (perceived) public opinion is rather obviously central to the capture of political institutions. More generally, politicians pander to public opinion (despite serving private masters) which undermines the very act of selecting a representative. If a candidate is a black box, or if he or she is little more than a weathervane with a coin slot, then a vote for that candidate is at best a crap shoot and at worst self-harm.