Open Thread: The Supreme Court and Social Policy

Should courts decide on contested moral questions?

We are trying something new out with our Q&A feature that we’re excited about. We (Shadi and Damir) will pose a question to the community, and ask you to reply and challenge us in comments. We’ll be in there too, mixing it up with you.

We recently upgraded our commenting platform on the site and would like to see it become a place where we engage more with our readers and listeners—as well as a place to discuss, debate, and think together on the kinds of questions that have animated Wisdom of Crowds from the beginning.

The premise of Wisdom of Crowds remains the same—and we think it’s more important than ever. It’s about getting at first principles: Why do we believe what we believe? What are the core questions upon which we can build consensus? Is it even desirable to have consensus in the first place? Is it better, instead, to use debate and discussion to discover what makes us different rather than what might make us similar?

On to this week’s question:

“Should courts decide social policy on contested moral questions?”

Some reading to get you thinking:

• “Rights are the GOP’s Problem Now,” by Damir Marusic (Wisdom of Crowds)

• “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of Clarence Thomas,” by Corey Robin (New Yorker)

Hope to see you in the discussion!

Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Become a member today.