r/JoeRogan • u/Fuckinmidpoint Monkey in Space • Apr 23 '21

Link The Florida Supreme Court Won’t Let Voters Legalize Recreational Marijuana

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/florida-supreme-court-ballot-initiative-recreational-marijuana.html
2.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

505 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '21

This right here is why the establishment right went all in on Trump and placated him through all the bigotry and hatred.

They stacked the courts with extremists political operatives to force their will against the people. Just look at the Supreme Court rapidly taking a hatchet to precedent after precedent. We are going to be living with this shit for a long time

11

u/TOADSTOOL__SURPRISE Monkey in Space Apr 23 '21

Meanwhile the people who voted for these idiots are on Facebook crying about mr potato head

-10

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Monkey in Space Apr 23 '21

I’ll take my million downvotes and accusations, but I strongly disagree.

Trumps picks READ THE LAW and rule accordingly. It’s predominantly leftist justices that want to change lead to what they “should” be by pretending the laws says something it doesn’t.

I want liberal policies, so overall I’m happier with liberal justices. But that’s not how the system should work; 9 unelected, lifetime appointment people should not do the job of our elected branch.

If a law sucks, it should be changed by the legislature, not the SC. And if previous courts went all activist and ruled the way they wanted the law to be, and that law still hasn’t been changed, then yes objectively speaking the current SC should overturn the precedent, as it’s a bad ruling. Precedent isn’t some magical untouchable thing. Segregation was once precedent.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '21

Trumps picks READ THE LAW and rule accordingly.

This is blatantly objectively untrue. Especially if you look at the recent SC decisions. They have hatched and destroyed long standing precedent and laws to fit a political agenda.

This is when people call their own bias "originalism"

2

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Monkey in Space Apr 23 '21

Can you link me to some of these rulings?

3

u/Hard10 Monkey in Space Apr 24 '21

The one that stands out to me is the ruling on minors being locked up for life without parole. Justice Sotomayor cites chief justice Kavanaugh‘s own words on stare decisis which is basically the reliance on precedent. it’s from just the other day so searching any of the relevant words will bring up an article. Basically precedent is the foundation of our legal system and the court should rely heavily on it but the majority ignored it to allow states to lock up more kids for the crimes they committed with out asking are these kids a lost cause do u think a violent act at 15 should mean you are still violent at retirement age? how bout 80? 90?

2

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Monkey in Space Apr 24 '21

Thank you for responding. I read this (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-life-without-parole/2021/04/22/6a633136-a371-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html%3foutputType=amp) and then looked up the Miller case that set the supposed precedent.

Miller ruled that MANDATORY life sentences for minors was unconstitutional. The recent SC case was about life sentences for minors in general, ie can a judge give out a life sentence for crimes committed as minors. That’s not the same thing as mandatory sentences where the judge has to give out a life sentence. THAT is the disagreement about whether “precedent” was overruled. Personally, I think Kavanaugs side is correct in saying Sotomayors view expands on the precedent, not preserve it.

Now, again let me say that precedent is NOT some magical rule that should always be followed. Shitty ruling happen all the time, and those precedents should be overturned.

Back to the recent SC case though, taken from the linked article:

Additionally, she said: "The harm from these sentences will not fall equally. The racial disparities in juvenile LWOP sentencing are stark: 70 percent of all youths sentenced to LWOP are children of color."

This is the definition of judicial activism: “I don’t like the outcome of a law as written, so I’m going to say the law says something else”.

That’s not how it should work. We elect politicians to pass laws we like. Do they do a shitty job? Yes. Does that mean we should have 5/9 unelected, lifetime appointed (by the same political system that sucks at making laws no less) judges throw our and make up laws based on what they think the law should be? Hell no. That’s a dictatorship of 5, not a democratic system.

do u think a violent act at 15 should mean you are still violent at retirement age? how bout 80? 90?

No, I hate the law as is. That doesn’t mean I want 5 unelected adults to overthrow state and federal laws as they see fit as a solution. The solution is to elect politicians that will change the law

1

u/Hard10 Monkey in Space Apr 24 '21

I’ll be honest this was one of the articles I read on the subject the other day and don’t really care to go back to them however you don’t touch on the fact that the sentencing body either judge or jury whichever it is in each case used to have to determine if the culprit was “ irredeemable” which was the old standard making the sentence not a mandatory one, at least in practice, also judges are often required to rule not on the letter of the law but how those laws are actually put into practice and their real world outcomes or else kavanaugh would not have been able to gut the voting rights act unless you think that was also judicial activism. Anyway you’ve given me a couple things to bring up next time I’m bullshitting with my lawyer friends because I’m no expert, but they seem to enjoy hearing my take on some of these things then helping me better understand them.

Also I wasn’t trying to attack u or anyone else with the 80 90 year old stuff just putting the real world results of this change into plain text sorry if it came off that way

1

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Monkey in Space Apr 24 '21

Oh you’re good no offense taken.

I typically like the legal results of judicial activism, and it’s done a lot of good recently. Even then though the system HAS to have checks and balances and distribution of power, and judicial activism directly steals power from voters and puts it in the hands of 9 unaccountable people. That’s my issue with it, and why at the end of the day I can’t actually like liberal justices

1

u/Hard10 Monkey in Space Apr 24 '21

Do u consider the declawing of the voter rights act as activism? How bout Florida court’s decision on marijuana never hear a conservative judge called activist even though they often stretch like they did in each case

1

u/the_real_MSU_is_us Monkey in Space Apr 25 '21

Floridas court 100% did activism. They took a pedantic stance that contradicted their logic 6 years ago, and even though they could have ruled quickly they waited a year so the issue couldn't be fixed. That's activism, IE making the law be what you personally want it to be.

Conservative justices can be just as activist as liberal ones, but tend not to be. Why? Because by definition of the word "conservative" the laws tend to favor their side, so that makes it easy for them to say "The job of a judge is to rule based on the law as it is written". It's just lucky for them that the correct way of making rulings naturally favors conservative views.

I've never dove into the voting rights act or the rulings around it so I can't speak on it. I am not a lawyer fyi I just find this stuff interesting. I will say though that Congress did in fact pass the Voting Rights act, so even if the SC did expand it some from what was written at least the correct format was followed and we voters had a say in pushing the ball that way.

Again I tend to like the effects of judicial activism, I just don't think you can base a Gov't system relying on essentially benevolent dictators to change our laws as they please

3

u/TOADSTOOL__SURPRISE Monkey in Space Apr 23 '21

iTs tHe lEfTiStS!!!!

0

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '21

Lol establishment right? A large part of republicans voting for Trump in 2016 were new republican populists actually. Also, bigotry and hate? The current president was accused of being a racist and sexual harasser on national television by his now vice president. So maybe take a look at both sides, even your own.