This doesn't make OP's point less true: the headlines surrounding this decision are misleading. This is not judicial overreach, it's an application of a different theory of judicial review than we've become accustomed to, and it's not necessarily a bad one.

If we don't like it when the police creatively interpret laws to target minorities, can we allow the EPA the authority to creatively interpret laws to target fossil fuel companies? Is it possible to give the executive authorities the power to be creative, but only in the service of a good cause? This Supreme Court believes it's not, and that seems like a reasonable position to take.

A court that is unconstrained by precedent can arrive at any policy outcome it wants: simply tailor a "novel" legal theory that gives you the desired result, then ignore past decisions that use different theories. Past Courts have worked extremely hard to avoid this: they viewed it as fatal to the legitimacy of the Court. They were right.

But that’s exactly what the Roe v Wade decision was - decide what policy you want, then have the court come up with an argument as to why that right exists.

It’s not supposed to work that way. The legislature makes laws, the court interprets under the framework of the Constitution.

Precedent is important, but it’s not supposed to create law out of thin air. It’s supposed to be based on a firm set of decisions that flow from the Constitution and law.

Here's the thing: some of us start from the point of view that the Constitution might be bad. I know it's sacrilegious. But from there, all sorts of rulings seem like improvements on a baroque 18th century piece of paper. If you DO uphold the Constitution as being "the greatest legal document ever made" (faith-based view) then yeah all these conservative SCOTUS put-downs seem logical to restoring the US source code. It's just a piece of paper though being stretched to apply to situations unimaginable to their originators and badly need of updates.

The constitution may be bad. We've had a number of amendments, most of which improved in in very critical ways.

The point is that we should live under legislation that is agreed upon via democratic means. Congress has pretty broad powers to create laws. Where those powers are circumscribed, such as with gun control, we have prescribed mechanisms for amending the constitution and making it less bad.

I'm highly critical of the court legislating from the bench, whichever direction it does it from. I'm _extremely_ frustrated and dismayed that our legislative branch punts so many contentious issues to the courts. If the court is now less willing to play that game, maybe we'll go back to deciding things in the legislature, where we can have a debate that is values-based, and not just based on the reading of a baroque 18th century document.

For what it's worth, I favor broad government action to address climate change and excessive CO2 emissions, but it's going to be better for everyone if there's some horse-trading here and we get some broad buy-in instead of having it be imposed by unelected government appointees that are not operating under a broad mandate.

If we can't get broad buy-in, I guess that means we can't deal with climate change democratically. Maybe then one wants to advocate for non-democratic measures, but then we should just be honest about that.

It's exactly this kind of attitude that the Constitution was designed as it was. Too many people are willing to circumvent normal legislative actions because "we're doing the right thing". What they end up forgetting is if they can do it, so can their opponents. "Those who are willing to give up freedom in exchange for <x> deserve neither.

The Founding Fathers seems smarter and smarter the more you dig into it.

You can think the Constitution is bad and that's fine, but wanting to change Constitution through non-democratic means is much worse.

What's stopping people from changing it?

Can you cite some materials to back up your claims?

Besides the latest Roe V Wade decision deviating from two previous decisions which were decided by larger majorities, it also cites ideas based in “originalism” or constitutional fundamentalism which don’t even make sense. They argued there is “no general right to privacy” outlined in the constitution, which clashes greatly with any reasonable reading of the 4th amendment.

So please, do explain how the 4th amendment doesn’t grant any right to general privacy, and how this current highly political court is somehow actually being more legally objective than the previous two which created and upheld decisively the ruling which is also generally agreed to align with reasonable moral stances

"A different theory of legal review" which here means coming to a predetermined policy decision, and then inventing legal justification for it, no matter how flimsy.

I've had plenty of educated, well-informed individuals make exactly the same legal arguments to me for decades. Whether or not I agree with the reasoning, it's not hard for me to believe that the Supreme Court justices believed the principles they're following long before they arrived at this decision.

You can disagree with the legal justification, but that you disagree is not evidence that it was invented to achieve a specific goal.

Because its not provable. But it is still true.

Sticking our heads in the sand because theres still percentage points of doubt leads to disaster.

Thomas is carrying out a personal and vindictive agenda without regard to the harm caused to hundreds of millions of people. He’s neither principled nor objective. Kavanaughs an angry drunk coasting off connections, wealth, and privilege. Barrett’s a perjured radical theologist trying to legislate handmaids tale into reality from the bench.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-...

> This is not judicial overreach, it's an application of a different theory of judicial review than we've become accustomed to, and it's not necessarily a bad one.

Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions. It is extremely dangerous to act like there haven't been hundreds of years of civilizatory development in all areas since the scriptures were written. Originalism/orthodoxy/fundamentalism, especially one that doesn't take contemporary issues of the text's origin into mind, always is bad.

Add on top that the judicial picks of the 45th were carefully selected for their attitudes and the GQP ignored a boatload of red flags for every single one candidate, and now it's not just "application of a different theory", it's a full-blown takeover.

> Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions.

There's nothing stopping you from rewriting the laws. Religions don't work that way.

Although, the US constitution is almost a religious text the way it's treated as almost sacred. Why does anyone still care what the founders intended? They're not prophets...

> Why does anyone still care what the founders intended? They're not prophets…

As a foreigner whose country changed constitutions a good dozen of times since the USA passed its own and amends it more or less yearly, this used to baffle me. My take is that there is so little that units American together nowadays that they cling strongly to every anchor they can find.

> Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions. It is extremely dangerous to act like there haven't been hundreds of years of civilizatory development in all areas since the scriptures were written. Originalism/orthodoxy/fundamentalism, especially one that doesn't take contemporary issues of the text's origin into mind, always is bad.

No it isn't. Your analogy doesn't really work because religious scriptures can't usually be amended (within the context of a single religion), while there are well-defined mechanisms for amending and updating law (e.g. what legislatures do all day). Basically: update the text itself with the needed changes, not the interpretation.

There are serious problems with using interpretation to update law: it makes the text ambiguous, because who knows how some loosely-constrained judge(s) will decide to "update" it in the future, and it's anti-democratic because it bypasses the democratic political bodies who's actual job it is to actually make the updates.

The problem with US constitutional law right now is that a lot of people want certain things to be "constitutional" when there's no actual consensus for doing so (a consensus isn't 50% + 1, it's "pretty much everyone agrees").

Actual originalism is impossible, even if you isolated yourself from social cults seeking to cultivate corrupt judges like the federalist society.

All humans have inherent biases and lenses and perspectives. Do jury duty sometime. Actual factual recollections vary in details and even factual accuracy

> Actual originalism is impossible...

In an absolutely pure form? Sure, but that's true of most good things (e.g. justice). That doesn't mean the concept is bad or that shouldn't be pursued to the greatest degree possible, especially when the alternative is to have someone interpret the law like Humpty Dumpty when it suits them (https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html).

> If we don't like it when the police creatively interpret laws to target minorities, can we allow the EPA the authority to creatively interpret laws to target fossil fuel companies?

We can under the legal theory "What I want goes; what I don't want, no."

Where did you see a headline about judicial overreach? The headline here and in the article is objectively correct.