SCOTUS balance

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by NJlonghorn, Feb 13, 2017.

  1. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    SCOTUSblog.com puts out a statistics pack each year (link), but I hadn't looked at it in quite some time. The most interesting stat, imho, is the agreement chart (link), showing which justices agree with the others most often, as well as the summary of that chart showing highs and lows (link). These charts give a pretty good idea of where the Justices stand ideologically.

    The latest available stats, from the October 2015 term, support what I have been saying on this board for years -- that there is a block of 4 centrist Justices, with two Justices solidly on each side. (Of course, there were three Justices solidly on the right before Scalia passed away.)

    I know some on this board believe that the Supreme Court has 4 liberal justices who always vote as a bloc to support the liberal agenda. I would ask those folks to consider the fact that Kagan and Breyer agree with Roberts and Kennedy more often than they agree with Ginsberg or Sotomayor.

    Conversely, there are many folks who believe that there is a solid block of at least 3 and maybe 4 conservative Justices, who always vote to support the conservative agenda. I would ask them to consider the fact that Roberts and Kennedy agree with Kagan and Breyer more often than they agree with Alito or Thomas.

    My takeaway:
    • Sotamayor and Ginsberg are extremist liberals.
    • Thomas and Alito are extremist conservatives.
    • Kagan and Breyer resolve cases on their merits, but with a liberal slant.
    • Roberts resolves cases on their merits, but with a conservative slant.
    • Kennedy resolves cases on their merits, with little if any slant, perhaps slightly conservative.
    Also of note is that even among the outliers, Thomas stands out. Thomas has extremely high "disagree" marks with 6 of the other 7 justices, including Roberts and Kennedy.
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It's because on high profile social issue cases (the "God, guns, and gays" cases), they generally do vote as a bloc. I'm sure they'll split on cases analyzing the nuances of minimum contacts in determining territorial jurisdiction, but other than people like you and me, nobody here has any idea what the hell I just said. And nobody cares or thinks it matters.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  3. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    Even on the "God, guns, and gays" cases, Sotomayor and Ginsberg tend to be absolutist while Breyer and Kagan tend towards the left-of-center. For example, sometimes I think Sotomayor and Ginsberg would permit murder of a two-week-old baby so long as you call it a "post-term abortion". Breyer and Kagan, on the other hand, support abortion rights but agree with Kennedy and Roberts on the need for reasonable restrictions on those rights. You may disagree with both positions, but they are fundamentally different.
     
  4. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    That deserves a separate "lol". So true.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I disagree with both, but I also recognize that they are different. However, what I think isn't the point. Sotomayor and Ginsberg might vote to extend a substantive due process right to commit infanticide, but no such case has reached the Court for them to distinguish themselves from Breyer and Kagan. And have Kagan and Breyer actually voted to affirm an abortion restriction that Sotomayor and Ginsberg voted to strike down? If they have, I'm not familiar with it. The point is that unless they actually start voting differently on cases that are actually before the Court, people are going to lump them together.
     
  6. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I know I am a broken record and everyone has moved on, but I still love to know where these rights are in the constitution and what guidance the document can provide on the reasonableness of abortion restrictions.

    I wonder what a founding father or framer of the 14th amendment would say if you told them that the constitution and that amendment transfered the right of 50 state legislatures to make abortion restriction policies to nine unelected justices instead. It is even more amazing that document gave women aborition rights, but not the right to vote without an amendment.

    When I read the justices' opinions arguing about trimesters and heath clinics, I think to myself, "they got all of this out of the 14th amendment. Amazing." Their basis for their opinions is not the law but their nine opinions of what is reasonable and fair as opposed to letting the populace vote and decide.

    On a side note, I am not even passionate on the abortion issue, but I am amazed when new rights are discovered. Also, why were abortion rights discovered and not others? The court could not find gay marriage rights when it first heard the issue in the 60s, but then found the Constitution always required them 50 years later.

    The entire Court leans towards giving itself more policy making power in the long run. It would be interesting to see if the travel ban is appealed to the Supreme Court. My guess is the court, including some of the conservative judges, would see an opportunity of having enough public backing to grab more policy making power.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Rumor that Kennedy has informed Trump that he will resign

    All praise Harry Reid
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    More rumblings today that Kennedy has been discussing retirement with his closest advisors
     
  9. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Talk about a nasty confirmation process coming our way when Kennedy retires. This couldn't set up more contentious. Both sides will have reasonable arguments.

    Right now it's still fairly balanced on the ideological chart.

    4 Conservatives (Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas)
    4 Liberals (Breyer, Ginsburgh, Kagan, Sotomayor)
    1 Centrist (Kennedy)

    It's crazy the one retiring is the only one to touch both sides of the ideological chart. Kennedy was slightly on the Con side in the past, yet 2010 began a downward slope.

    By 2013 he was right in the middle. In 2014 he crossed into Lib territory and has steadily descended year by year.

    Libs are gonna light their hair on fire demanding a centrist to appropriately replace what left. They'll concede there's no way in hell a Lib leaner would be considered.

    However, a centrist has completely diff meanings to Reps and Dems. Not to mention the guy retiring was supposed to be a mild Con and backfired on the nominating party.

    All I can hope is DT shoves another Gorsuch down their throat and says 'elections have consequences' like his predecessor.

    There's no question Dems wouldn't nominate a centrist if they had this opportunity at a guaranteed swing of balance.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  10. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    And we will notice the difference, how?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    For once they'll have an argument that sounds reasonable to many independents.

    Dems: The nominee should be a centrist to preserve the balance and fairness

    Reps: POTUS has the right, expectancy, and historical backing to nominate the person he feels best represents his party's ideology on the court (though accurate, it will be stated more towards the right to nominate the best person to execute the duties).
     
  12. Hollandtx

    Hollandtx 250+ Posts

    I don't know the politics of Merrick Garland that well, but, from what I have read he is a reasonable pick to at least go through the questioning process. Trump could do a great deal to soothe some of the divisive politics in the US by at least bringing him forward.
    I have to look at this as if I were a big time Democrat...I would be terrified of a SCOTUS that was so imbalanced. Even as a non-Democrat, I don't like to see an imbalance.

    As a nation, we have to begin to try and heal this huge rift of "us v. them". I would love Trump to put up a nominee that would be an olive branch to Obama folks. Can you imagine the reaction of Democrats? For once, it would be a Trump decision that they couldn't freak out over. I'm no fan of Trump, but, I also am disgusted by the constant deluge of negative press. I can't think of the last time I have read or heard about anything positive he has done. Even simple things such as visiting the police that took out the shooter at the baseball game, or going to the hospital to see Otto's family from N. Korea received scant coverage.
    * This post is contingent of Merrick Garland being a fairly conservative centrist.
     
  13. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    Obama packed the Circuit Courts with as many activists judges as he could. No centrist judges for him. We need a conservative Supreme Court to mitigate the damage they cause.

    Too bad it's Kennedy and not Ginsberg that is thinking about retiring.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  15. VYFan

    VYFan 2,500+ Posts

    How will this affect the minimum contacts issue?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    This is a huge reason many Reps voted for DT. HRC would've likely replaced Scalia with the mildly Liberal Garland to honor Obama's choice.

    Her Kennedy replacement was all but guaranteed to be a strong Liberal and this country was going to suffer from the vast imbalance for a very long time.

    The all but guaranteed nuclear bomb of HRC's second appointment permanently shredding the traditional fabric of America was avoided by the DT upset.

    Why should DT appoint a centrist when everyone knows HRC planned to annihilate the balance? Let's say this is DT's last appointment and ends with a balanced court.

    What happens if he lost in 2020 and the Lib POTUS gets two appointments? No chance balance would be preserved unless it was replacing Libs.

    We nuked the filibuster. Dems will seek SCOTUS payback way beyond proportional.

    The point is it's not only a present decision, it's also one to offset the very likely activist appointments once they reacquire POTUS.

    DT needs to run up the score as high as possible so it'll last as long as possible. The day this country sees a Lib controlled SCOTUS and POTUS, America as we know it is toast.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  17. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Historically, they seem to migrate to the middle. That's the good thing about lifetime appointments.
     
  18. Hollandtx

    Hollandtx 250+ Posts

    I understand your point, Brad Austin, but if America continues to suffer this gaping political divide, we are toast. The way I see it, Trump made a great pick as his first SCOTUS appointment.
    If Trump throws the Dems a bone with Garland, I think it prevents the payback you predict, and a payback that would do grievous harm to the USA.
    Personally, I am hedging my bet that RBG will not be able to last the next 4 years, thus allowing another selection by the Republicans.
    I am willing to take that bet, again presuming Garland is a decent, only mildly liberal pick, if it would help mend the ugly divide and prevent an even uglier battle in the future.
    Sometimes you have to cede a little ground and look at the big picture and ensuing end result. Just my 2 cents.
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Lol. It'll affect it minimally.
     
  20. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    I don't see an "imbalance" towards those that believe in The Constitution of The United States as written as any kind of vice.
     
  21. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    I will agree with your stance on the merits if you replaced the slightly Lib Garland with a mildly Con _____. Even though there are still many within the base who remain disgruntled by the perceived party backstabbing from Kennedy.

    By that I mean there would be many who would disapprove of any choice that has the remotest chance of flipping sides. Which is why DT gained immense credibility with the base over his list of highly Con SCOTUS options.

    Appointing a mildly Con choice who's within range of a centrist would ruffle some of the base, but they could get over it off the heels of Gorsuch.

    However, DT would destroy all credibility within a vast amount of the base appointing Garland or any other choice who could even been construed as a potential Lib lean.

    You don't win a contentious election which many felt represented the last gasp of traditional American values only to select a SCOTUS nominee that IS or MAY lean towards the opposition party.

    This is the constant mistake the clueless Reps always make. Believing appeasing the new left will earn them points later.

    Every single time they make strong concessions the left returns just as cold and vicious on the next issue. The last two budgets are a prime example of caving with no reward.

    It would be easy to assume the left would view this as a peace offering and alter future behavior, but it's simply dead wrong. They do not and will not start operating this way.

    While I appreciate your position, the base would go apesh*t on DT if he pulled such a weak, forfeiture move in this climate of constant obstruction of his presidency by them.

    One of DT's strongest selling points to hold support of the base is Gorsuch and he touts him constantly as being in the conservative mold of Scalia.

    Good luck selling that as a raving success in 2020 when he tries to rally the base over appointing Gorsuch and Garland. His greatest success to date would fizzle out.

    If anything, DT must retain his appointment successes to stoke the base in 2020. This guarantees the next one is at least mildly Con.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  22. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I think the days of appointing justices on their merits are long dead. Both parties want nine judges that agree with them. Unless you can convince both parties to appoint the best judges regardless of whether they are left or right, or you can get both parties to appoint 3 liberals, 3 conservatives and 3 moderates (some sort of deal)... there is not any point. If both parties do not agree, one party choosing to appoint someone on the other side just equals an unnecessary loss for that party. The other party will not respond in kind in today's political climate. Trump should appoint conservatives. The democrats will not appoint a moderate.

    Ideally, I would love it if both parties were more willing to appoint a moderate or compromise... but it just is not realistic today.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  23. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    The Dems tried to appoint a moderate just last year. A fact that you seem to have forgotten. Hell, I could argue that Scalia won that election. Many Christian conservatives held their noses (and covered their female genitalia) and voted for the most immoral man ever to sit in the Oval Office just because of that Supreme Court pick. And, as much as I disagree with the action, McConnell showed everyone that he could make a run at the iron throne with that baller move.
     
  24. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Garland was not/is not moderate. The media (which is terrible at reading legal opinions in general) said he was moderate, however that was not the case. Garland was clearly on the left, which is great in some cases such as free speech, but he would not be a moderate "swing" vote.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  25. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    I don't know many Christian conservatives who voted for Obama. You must run in different circles than I do.
     
  26. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    Where do you get this stuff from? Serious, you may not like the way he tweets, but he's been very transparent. Maybe too much transparent due to the msm eating him alive. Yes many years ago he said something inappropriate about woman, but Bill Bubba Clinton was accused of rape and did some pretty immoral things in the oval office. Corruption would be very immoral and Obama has to be the most immoral President we've ever seen. But make no mistake about it, Obama is the worst President because he seemed to be batting for the other team on top of all his lousy policies that hurt America.
     
  27. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    A. I know more than a few people who vowed not to vote for trump during the primaries. Push came to shove and they held their nose over the SCOTUS seat. One is a neighbor and great friend who's very pro life yet not a fan of the president.

    B. I'm not releasing my taxes. Grab them by the *****. Move on them like a *****. I like those who don't get captured. My personal vietnam was getting out of the 70's vitality a STD. They're bringing murderers and rapists, and probably some good people to. She was bleeding from her eyes...and other places. Believe me, there's nothing wrong down there, trust me ....all things that would have sunk anyone not running against Hillary with a seat on the Court in play.

    Remember what doomed Howard dean?

    My how things have changed since then.
     
  28. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    Not showing taxes? You do understand that's pushed only for the MSM to make a big deal about nothing with the GOP contenders? They will dissect it inside out and even make up crap as they go. They give a pass and don't scrutinize the Dems taxes at all. In other words, they make the Republicans swim across the river with the alligators. They give the Dems a floaty with a tropical drink and in the safe river.

    So why would any Republican show their taxes? I'd advise them not to ever. Not because they are hiding something, but because it's not on a level playing field.
     
  29. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Out of all of that you pick that nugget? Is he not he first major presidential candidate to NOT release his taxes? Is that a "myth"? Do tell.
     
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Im sitting at a softball park between games. I did the research for you.

    Gerald ford did not release his taxes. The only one since it started being expected.

    The public wants to see them. An overwhelming majority of Republicans want to see them. https:///thehill.com/policy/finance...ans-want-trump-to-release-his-tax-returns?amp
     

Share This Page