• iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is it? Are Supreme Court Justices supposed to be compromising, or are they supposed to interpret the written law?

    Would you feel the same way if a liberal, pro-choice, pro-lgbt rights justice said the same thing about there being fundamental differences that can’t be compromised?

    • TOModera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think it comes down to what those things are rather then not compromising. Not compromising on human rights, for instance, is great. Not compromising on if you can openly hate gay people due to your religion, not so great. If you feel child labour is required for a functional society, also not great. So it’s chilling when someone in a high level of rule making says they don’t believe they can compromise on their hatred.

      Add to that they believe they are being persecuted and that their German heritage will explain how they will eventually react, and it becomes more chilling.

      • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sure, so the issue is not so much that a supreme court justice is saying such things, but which specific one is saying due to the beliefs he holds.

        • TOModera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes, nuance matters quite a bit. Saying “man, I wish America was like the 50s” is fine if I believe all people should have a living wage and one person should be able to support a family on their wage. It’s another thing if I feel that minorities have too many rights now.