Tweet
Isn't a closet liberal, but he is a stickler for administrative rules. First the census question last year, now DACA repeal.
-
-
Two observations:
(1) Republican Justices are almost always less ideological than Democrat Justices.
(2) No one becomes more conservative once they get on the Supreme Court. -
Art I think in the older days (1) may have been true, but the Warren court is pretty far over the horizon. Money=Speech, Corporations=People, are pretty ideological as far as rulings go.
As for (2), it has been written that the need to get to 5 votes causes people to learn how to moderate their views somewhat. And judges are generally not sourced from the radical left in the first place.Comment
-
you have posted in the past few days incidents where Justices appointed by Republican Presidents have voted in ways that didn't please the people who appointed them.
I would be interesting if you can find a case in which an Obama or Clinton appointee voted in a way contrary to the expectations of the men who appointed them.Comment
-
Here you go. This took less than one minute to find. Seriously.
Money quote:The magic Google search was "obama ruling supreme court". Seek and ye shall find.Obama’s Own Justices Are Voting Against Him
You could argue, of course, that a simple won‐loss rate doesn’t tell the whole story. After all, Obama’s solicitors general have faced a bench occupied by a majority of Republican appointees. (As did Clinton’s, but that didn’t stop him from pipping his Republican successor.) But the news gets even worse when you look at unanimous losses.
This term, the federal government argued an incredible 10 cases without gaining a single vote, not even that of one of President Obama’s own nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That brings his total to 44 unanimous losses. For comparison, George W. Bush suffered 30 unanimous losses, while Bill Clinton withstood 31. In other words, Obama has lost unanimously 50 percent more than his two immediate predecessors.Last edited by togor; 06-18-2020, 07:12.Comment
-
Clarence Thomas has been consistently Conservative.Comment
-
Bottom line: Roberts has allowed his obvious distain, if not hatred, for Trump to override whatever remnants of his former conservatism remained. A damnable traitor he is.Comment
-
Well, you got me there. Hanged on my on petard so to speak.Here you go. This took less than one minute to find. Seriously.
Money quote:
The magic Google search was "obama ruling supreme court". Seek and ye shall find.
But - to quote a lot of crooks I delt with..."what I meant to say" was that Democrat Justices don't vote against their party interest in important decisions decided by one vote. That isn't a lot of decisions, but they are usually very important decisions. As Justice Gorsuch said, the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions aren't 5-4, in fact he said most are at least 7-2 and a whole lot are 9-0. Those seldom make the news. One of my favorite examples was Heller which was 5-4 and in which Justice Ginsberg voted with the minority despite conceding that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does in fact intend that there should be an " individual right to keep and bear arms."Comment
-
In my opinion it wouldn't kill Congress to get off it's rear and actually legislate some of these issues, instead of leaving it for judges to decide. Seems to me that close losses at court or in the stadium are hardest to take. I knew some people who saw a complete travesty in Bush v. Gore, a case where the 5-4 majority opinion actually instructed future jurists to disregard it for purposes of precedent. The logic whereby the rights of voters are best secured by not counting votes was monumentally flawed.Comment
Comment