BLUE
Profile banner
PR
Paul Rosenberg
@paulrosenberg.bsky.social
Words. More to come.
1.2k followers594 following9.9k posts
PRpaulrosenberg.bsky.social

But from another perspective, it's "an especially egregious example of a generally illegitimate institution" that's usurped the authority of democratically elected officials: 16/28

There’s “another way to look at the current court,” Doerfler continued, “as an especially egregious example of a generally illegitimate institution, one that has over decades if not centuries usurped the decision-making authority of democratically elected officials”:
From reproductive freedom to labor rights to the environment, the Supreme Court has claimed for itself ultimate authority over national policy, a claim inconsistent with even the thinnest notions of democracy. The solution is not to return to an imagined golden age during which the Court made its decisions in a ‘non-partisan’ manner, but rather to reclaim that authority for the people.
1

PRpaulrosenberg.bsky.social

The second, more progressive frame has gotten relatively scant attention. @ryandoerfler.bsky.social gave two reasons it should be taken more seriously. First, that democracy is valuable in itself: 17/28

At least the “legitimization” frame, the first one mentioned above, is  being discussed, although it’s still not widely embraced among the punditocracy. That second, more progressive frame has gotten less attention, and I asked Doerfler why it deserves to be taken more seriously. The first reason, he said,
is that democracy is valuable in itself, and that we as a people should be offended by the idea of our nation’s most important decisions being effectively removed from the political realm. Whatever one’s views on any of the issues I mention, Supreme Court justices have no legitimate claim, morally, epistemically or legally, to having any say, let alone the final say, on such things.
1
Profile banner
PR
Paul Rosenberg
@paulrosenberg.bsky.social
Words. More to come.
1.2k followers594 following9.9k posts