before when I was naive - I thoughts courts were impartial or I believed they were.
but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge or the judge's personal beliefs.
but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge or the judge's personal beliefs.
Recently the courts have gained more power through congressional dysfunction. If congress doesn't like how the court interprets a law they can just amend it.
The main thing that has changed is this court has decided that past rulings do not matter. That's what is going to really cause a lot of chaos in the courts as time goes on.
Something isn't always good or always wrong. Overturning precedent may be the right thing to do, it isn't always right. This court's excessive overturning of precedent is Judicial activism that isn't going to be good and in particular is attacking individual liberties.
One major issue with making everything a jump ball is lower courts can no longer rely on precedent to make rulings. It means all lower courts get to make decisions based on politics and, who knows, the supreme court might uphold their whims in the best case. It means that when you go to court or anyone else, you cannot have a reasonable guess at what outcome can be achieved which bloats the entire Judicial system for everyone.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definition...
You can see several more cases here: https://chatgpt.com/share/676316b1-9be0-8008-9586-6181324b11...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota
And further, the 5 in favor was the conservative wing of the supreme court +Ginsberg -Roberts. The reason Roberts dissented was Stare decisis.
Notice that from your chatgpt query, the majority of the cases were from 201X and beyond.
We are now at the point where nearly yearly we are seeing prior precedent overturned. Prior to that it was something that happened maybe once per decade.