Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Yes, that's how the Justices operate, with utter disregard for the ramifications of their decisions. They probably don't care about the constitutionality of precedents either.
-spence
|
I don't absolutely know how the Justices operate, but guess that contrary to "utter disregard" (another one of those little absolutes that slip into your comments though you believe there are no absolutes?) they adjudicate specifically on the ramifications of their decisions. I think they intend specific ramifications. The major difference between "conservative" and progressive judges is that the former intend to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the latter, in spite of their oath, intend to advance their opinion on some current variant of notional social justice--even if the ramification is nullification of the Constitution.
I would say that those who uphold their oath care far more about constitutionality, whether it be precedent or originality, than those who wander into judgment by personal opinion. But both, in my opinion, are aware of, and actually seek, the ramifications of their decisions.
BTW, the idea that a "precedent" is in and of itself constitutional is not an absolute. Every Court decision which creates new precedent that previously didn't exist, is in itself a change from and often a contradiction to previous precedent. And if later Courts find in a precedent a contradiction to the Constitution, they would be absolutely correct in striking it down.
The Constitution has been overburdened to the point of destruction by bad precedent.