Since we are concerned about how in practice the supreme court might overthrow a political policy decision, it seems to me that we need a basic law specifying the limits to which the supreme court can go when it relates to politics. I believe that the job of the supreme court is to deal with legal matters and not political ones. Should these two things get entangled, we need some better definitions about exactly which is not a part of and inapplicable to the legal system.
Agreed, the less ambiguity, the less room for disagreements to arise about what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate decision. On the other hand, narrowing the definition of the Supreme Court's authority will be controversial in and of itself.
If this narrowing procedure eliminates political decision-making and the making of effective changes to its consequences from the judicial role of the Supreme Court, it will be a legitimate and beneficial change. The last word should be from a democratically elected government.
Great read! Am I understanding motivated reasoning correctly to mean something along the lines of uninformed, or impulsive, actions (militarily, politically, professionally, etc.)? Very interesting to see what unfolds with the Supreme Court developments.
No I wouldn't say they are uninformed or impulsive at all. Motivated reasoners actually believe they have carefully and coolly considered all the different angles of the issue. What they're missing is the unconscious biases and other processes leading them to make their conclusion, which in turn make it difficult for them to understand how someone could possibly come to a diametrically opposed conclusion. Thus, they conclude that the other person must be uninformed or impulsive. And the thing is, we're all susceptible to motivated reasoning.
Very true. It's definitely frustrating how so many people seem to be saying the same thing, along the lines of stop the fighting, and yet it can take so much time to find a common language. The exact definition might depend on the people and context too.
Since we are concerned about how in practice the supreme court might overthrow a political policy decision, it seems to me that we need a basic law specifying the limits to which the supreme court can go when it relates to politics. I believe that the job of the supreme court is to deal with legal matters and not political ones. Should these two things get entangled, we need some better definitions about exactly which is not a part of and inapplicable to the legal system.
Agreed, the less ambiguity, the less room for disagreements to arise about what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate decision. On the other hand, narrowing the definition of the Supreme Court's authority will be controversial in and of itself.
If this narrowing procedure eliminates political decision-making and the making of effective changes to its consequences from the judicial role of the Supreme Court, it will be a legitimate and beneficial change. The last word should be from a democratically elected government.
Great read! Am I understanding motivated reasoning correctly to mean something along the lines of uninformed, or impulsive, actions (militarily, politically, professionally, etc.)? Very interesting to see what unfolds with the Supreme Court developments.
No I wouldn't say they are uninformed or impulsive at all. Motivated reasoners actually believe they have carefully and coolly considered all the different angles of the issue. What they're missing is the unconscious biases and other processes leading them to make their conclusion, which in turn make it difficult for them to understand how someone could possibly come to a diametrically opposed conclusion. Thus, they conclude that the other person must be uninformed or impulsive. And the thing is, we're all susceptible to motivated reasoning.
Very true. It's definitely frustrating how so many people seem to be saying the same thing, along the lines of stop the fighting, and yet it can take so much time to find a common language. The exact definition might depend on the people and context too.