Sons of Liberty
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
I read an interesting article by entitled "Justices, Judges and Judicial Activism" (click for article), it got me thinking about recently overturned SCOTUS decisions and the question of right and wrong. When the current SCOTUS justices overturn a decision of a former group of SCOTUS justices, does it mean that the current groups decision is "right" and the former group's decision is "wrong"? When individuals are appointed because they hold a certain leaning, are decisions tainted with judicial activism?
In McDonald v. Chicago, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomeyer dissented. And in D.C. v. Heller, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter dissented. I am pretty sure I know how Kagan is going to land. What will we say in 10 years if SCOTUS, filled with individuals like these, overturns the current McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller decisions? Will we say that the 2020 SCOTUS got it right and the 2009 and 2010 SCOTUS got it wrong? After all, some would say justices of today know more than justices of the past.
In McDonald v. Chicago, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomeyer dissented. And in D.C. v. Heller, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter dissented. I am pretty sure I know how Kagan is going to land. What will we say in 10 years if SCOTUS, filled with individuals like these, overturns the current McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller decisions? Will we say that the 2020 SCOTUS got it right and the 2009 and 2010 SCOTUS got it wrong? After all, some would say justices of today know more than justices of the past.