The American judicial branch has been bad, but not as bad as it could've been. The biggest problem is the postmodern "living constitution" theory of law that allows judges to basically legislate from the bench.
The biggest problem is not any ideology, but the fact that they're allowed to do whatever the hell they want - which incentivizes them to come up with ideologies that justify them doing whatever the hell they want.
Yes, as bad as they are, at least they defend free speech - I cannot say the same of European judges.
I don't know if we're on the same page here. Judges are not normally allowed to do whatever the hell they want, only recently in US history as we have moved away from strict constitutionalism to "penumbras" and "emanations" that created fictitious constructs like "the right to privacy" (which has nothing to do with privacy).
Normally, judges are constrained by what they constrain the legislature with: the law and the spirit of the law. Historically this even works for the Supreme Court because of the immense depth and thought required of a judge's body of work to be nominated. The inculcated schooling and philosophy of the judge directs them after appointment.
Realistically the left-wing Supreme Court judges are rubber stamps at this point. But this still somewhat (somewhat) applies to conservative judges.
The American judicial branch has been bad, but not as bad as it could've been. The biggest problem is the postmodern "living constitution" theory of law that allows judges to basically legislate from the bench.
The biggest problem is not any ideology, but the fact that they're allowed to do whatever the hell they want - which incentivizes them to come up with ideologies that justify them doing whatever the hell they want.
Yes, as bad as they are, at least they defend free speech - I cannot say the same of European judges.
I don't know if we're on the same page here. Judges are not normally allowed to do whatever the hell they want, only recently in US history as we have moved away from strict constitutionalism to "penumbras" and "emanations" that created fictitious constructs like "the right to privacy" (which has nothing to do with privacy).
Normally, judges are constrained by what they constrain the legislature with: the law and the spirit of the law. Historically this even works for the Supreme Court because of the immense depth and thought required of a judge's body of work to be nominated. The inculcated schooling and philosophy of the judge directs them after appointment.
Realistically the left-wing Supreme Court judges are rubber stamps at this point. But this still somewhat (somewhat) applies to conservative judges.
Ant is a eurofag, and so doesn't understand that his reply to you was just restating what you said but with less understanding of the US legal system.