Let’s Talk About How Truly Bizarre Our Supreme Court Is
Topics covered
Popular Clips
Episode Highlights
Rights Discrepancies
The U.S. Supreme Court's approach to rights often results in a stark contrast between what is protected and what is ignored. highlights how rights like data mining for pharmaceutical companies are protected, while basic human needs like food and education are not recognized 1. This discrepancy stems from a narrow interpretation of rights, leading to distortions in understanding justice. Greene argues that in other countries, rights are seen as subjects of constitutional concern, requiring government justification for actions that restrict them 2.
It's because there's this very kind of constrained, very jaundiced way of looking at rights and how far they can go and how they can be protected by courts.
---
This broader view allows for a more contextual and incremental approach to justice, unlike the binary nature of U.S. legal decisions.
Framework Limitations
The U.S. Constitution's framework leads to a narrow interpretation of rights, unlike international practices. Greene explains that American courts often avoid recognizing rights like education and healthcare because they seem unmanageable judicially 3. This contrasts with other countries where rights are balanced with state objectives through frameworks like proportionality. Greene suggests a shift in focus from abstract legal interpretations to evaluating government actions and their purposes 4.
We can't give everyone food, that's just too much. And so that means it must not be a right, because if we can't manage it judicially, it must not be a right.
---
This approach could lead to a more equitable and practical application of rights, moving away from rigid legalism.