Is to use the constitution to drive social change. Yet there are those who want to stop that." Proceeds to show faces of only Republicans.
Yep. Completely objective.
Just know what you are watching... another propaganda piece of how the liberal establishment sees the Supreme Court. Watched through that lens, it's fine. What it's not is an "unbiased" view of the courts last 60 or so years.
Rotten Tomatoes has it at 100% which tells you everything you need to know. Movie critics are like democrat appointees on the court. They NEVER decent against the cause.
Republican Supreme Court appointees are hit and miss when it comes to "conservative" decisions. Democrat appointees are always consistent. Why is that? Is it because they are just always right?
The job of a justice it to determine how to rule based on the constitution. Period. They are not politicians. Their job isn't to "use it to drive social change" like that idiot said. They can certainly drive social change.... If it's constitutional. Most of the social change driving decision were made - like Brown v Board - because they were constitutional (Roe was the huge exception). Not because they would drive social change, no matter how important that change was needed.
When applying that constitutional standard the way it should be, was designed to be - independent of politics - justices should inevitably rule against "their side" from time to time. Like it or not, BOTH sides get it wrong sometimes. Of course they do. And yet... miraculously... democrats have never said "wow we sure went wrong with that justices didn't we?"
No matter how unconstitutional the vote or decision, (like the Roe decision was... just ask RBG), dem appointees vote down the line. Knowing this going in to watching the documentary is important because they are clearly inferring the opposite.
Finally, just remember this when they start whining about overturning precedent.... Brown v Board was overturned 60 years of precedent. So what, it was wrong then? Roe overturned precedent too. And created law - the one thing the court absolutely cannot and should never do (which is why honest liberals know it was a terrible decision based strictly on how the court is designed to operate).
So all of the arguments about overturning precedent are disingenuous meaningless nonsense designed to make you think "oh yeah, 40 years a lots of years duuuhhh" while you drool on you sofa, rather than think for yourself if the argument was good or not. Don't fall for it... like the rotten tomatoes critics did.
