So I ask you, (Tony), considering the current composition of the court, do you really want this court deciding "right" from "wrong"? Or would you rather they stick to strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution?
Me, I would prefer they stay in their lane and let the Legislature legislate.I think most of would like the legislatures to legislate, but that simply does not happen, so wishing is all that will be accomplished if not for the SCOTUS actually doing something about inequities and injustices they've identified in the past.
And again, I thought that I made clear my thoughts of the SCOTUS' role in defining "right" from "wrong": THAT is their job! What do you think listening to two sides lay out arguments and then applying each justice's personal knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the law and/or Constitution to reach a decision actually is? Isn't doing so the very definition of choosing between "right" and "wrong"?
The composition of the Court should not matter, and it's unfortunate that we're arrived at a point where jurists aren't unbiased arbiters of justice and instead rubberstamp political views not supported by the text nor spirit of our laws. This is why what Justice Jackson articulated from the bench was so powerful. Modern conservative justices have repeatedly found in their interpretations that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments should be viewed as templates meant to insure race neutrality as the means to arrive at equality between races, when the authors of the legislation themselves left an undisputed written record that the main reason for the amendments were to force governments to implement race conscious policies and laws because states were intentionally discriminating against newly freed blacks and denying them equal treatment under the law. Both points cannot be correct, nor can they coexist because they oppose each other.
So to me, the "right" interpretation of the law is that a state trying to diminish the political power of 27% of their population through racial gerrymandering literally defines why the Voting Rights Act and its successors were codified. Implying that the VRA is unconstitutional because it doesn't advocate race neutrality is ignoring the purpose of the law in the first place! The authors established that the majority used their political power against the minority's interests and that the law should stop such actions from happening up to and including incorporating allowances to the minority which by fault would take some power from the majority.
To me, this principle is not an ideological one, it's the essence of legal interpretation and something we've seen historically from modern court majorities up until recently. Judges should be fair and unbiased - putting their own prejudices and preferences aside when wrapping in the robes and sitting on the bench. And that means there job is to indeed choose between right and wrong - or if it makes you feel better, choosing to advance just decisions as much as possible.