Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

******Official SCOTUS Thread******


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, massraider said:

SCOTUS really washed its hair of Trump-related cases today: 
- Cleared the way for NY prosecutors to get his tax docs
- Formally refused to hear his failed challenges to Biden's wins in PA and WI
- Won't revive Stormy Daniels' defamation suit against him
https://t.co/F0jzl1G9IK

Finally seeing a light at the end of the justice tunnel.

Tick, tick, tick...XXXL orange jumpsuit coming up.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well I think it is only fair that we allow the next president to fill his seat.

“Pfft, there’s no difference between Clinton and Trump. I’ll just vote for Gary Johnson.”

I hope everyone who is angry and worried right now channels their anger and worry into energy to fight for justice and progress instead of finger-pointing. We all know who the opponent is, and it’s no

Since we can post stuff from our Twitter feed, here's an interesting order from the Court with respect to qualified immunity for police officers. It's a case called McCoy vs. Alamu, and it's explained by a UCLA law professor here. Those watching the Court and hoping for an end to qualified immunity for officers who are abusive during their duties might view this as an interesting step in the right direction, though a subtle one:

https://twitter.com/JCSchwartzProf/status/1363935682389893120

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Since we can post stuff from our Twitter feed, here's an interesting order from the Court with respect to qualified immunity for police officers. It's a case called McCoy vs. Alamu, and it's explained by a UCLA law professor here. Those watching the Court and hoping for an end to qualified immunity for officers who are abusive during their duties might view this as an interesting step in the right direction, though a subtle one:

https://twitter.com/JCSchwartzProf/status/1363935682389893120

From the thread:

Quote

But the Supreme Court granted cert, reversed, and remanded, instructing the 5th Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of Taylor v. Riojas, a SCT decision from 11/2020 ruling no prior factually similar case was necessary when any officer would know what they did was wrong.

This is great, and I hope the court goes this route.  I understand why Qualified Immunity exists -- government officials shouldn't be subject to prosecution just for doing their jobs, and we need to offer a certain degree of protection for people whose job inherently involves the use of the force.  But we've gone way too far in the opposite direction when we shield people from prosecution when they commit obvious crimes.  The actual case law on QI, which admittedly I've mostly learned about this year, is far too protective of conduct that everybody knows is bad.  This standard seems better IMO.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

When the police shoot a suspect as she flees, is that a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment?

Chief Roberts, joined by the 3 liberals and Justice Kennedy, say YES reversing the 10th Circuit's ruling.  Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissent. ACB sits this one out as she was not on the Court when it was argued.

This is a win for a woman who is suing the police.  From the Court's Syllabus:

Quote

Respondents Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson, officers with the New Mexico State Police, arrived at an Albuquerque apartment complex to execute an arrest warrant and approached petitioner Roxanne Torres, then standing near a Toyota FJ Cruiser. The officers attempted to speak with her as she got into the driver’s seat. Believing the officers to be carjackers, Torres hit the gas to escape. The officers fired their service pistols 13 times to stop Torres, striking her twice. Torres managed to escape and drove to a hospital 75 miles away, only to be airlifted back to a hospital in Albuquerque, where the police arrested her the next day. Torres later sought damages from the officers under 42 U. S. C. §1983. She claimed that the officers used excessive force against her and that the shooting constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the officers, the Tenth Circuit held that “a suspect’s continued flight after being shot by police negates a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.”

Held: The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

When the police shoot a suspect as she flees, is that a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment?

Chief Roberts, joined by the 3 liberals and Justice Kennedy, say YES reversing the 10th Circuit's ruling.  Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissent. ACB sits this one out as she was not on the Court when it was argued.

This is a win for a woman who is suing the police.  From the Court's Syllabus:

 

no way a lawyer but were the officers that approached her in uniform?   indicated a fear of carjacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kodycutter said:

no way a lawyer but were the officers that approached her in uniform?   indicated a fear of carjacking.

They were in uniform.  The facts are in dispute, and the Court has to give her the benefit of the doubt when ruling on a summary judgment motion.  In other words, when the lower court dismissed her case on summary judgment (on motion, without a trial), they have to essentially find that no reasonable view of the facts could lead to a win for her.  So the facts regarding her reasons for fleeing are not that important.  Its really a legal question more than factual, regarding application of the 4th amendment.  Also, she was on a meth jag at the time, so there's that.  In her defense, she was not the person the cops were after, and they knew that.  They wanted to talk to her only, so it might seem a bit odd they fired 13 shots at her as she drove away, striking her twice.  The fact summary is quite short - first couple pages of the Chief's opinion.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

When the police shoot a suspect as she flees, is that a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment?

Chief Roberts, joined by the 3 liberals and Justice Kennedy, say YES reversing the 10th Circuit's ruling.  Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissent. ACB sits this one out as she was not on the Court when it was argued.

This is a win for a woman who is suing the police.  From the Court's Syllabus:

You had me confused. I thought Anthony Kennedy was back on the bench for a minute. I even looked it up I was so surprised. You mean Kavanaugh.

eta* Thanks for posting. I was just...shocked a bit for a minute. A little dazed, a little confused.

Edited by rockaction
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rockaction said:

You had me confused. I thought Anthony Kennedy was back on the bench for a minute. I even looked it up I was so surprised. You mean Kavanaugh.

The irony is Kavanaugh is that independent moderate that media told us the partisan hack that Garland was supposed to be..

Edited by jon_mx
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The irony is Kavanaugh is that independent moderate that media told us the partisan hack that Garland was supposed to be..

How is this political?  Like what conservative value is upheld by letting police shoot a woman in the back for no other reason than she ran from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, rockaction said:

You had me confused. I thought Anthony Kennedy was back on the bench for a minute. I even looked it up I was so surprised. You mean Kavanaugh.

It’s not the first time I’ve done this. Should just call him “Justice K.” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CletiusMaximus said:

It’s not the first time I’ve done this. Should just call him “Justice K.” 

I can also get stuck in a gear. Just color me surprised and gullible enough to have to look it up. The real rub is that I can't name the nine off of the top of my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

How is this political?  Like what conservative value is upheld by letting police shoot a woman in the back for no other reason than she ran from them?

Because it took tortured logic to come up with a just solution.  The court had redefined what seizure and arrest means to get to the desired ruling.  The ruling has more to do with defining seizure in order to allow a lawsuit.  The conservatives probably felt the woman should be allowed to sue, they just could not justify it based on the the fourth amendment argument.  The principle of original intent is the conservative value.  At least that is how I took it from skimming a few of the arguments. I am sure that is not a lawyerly explanation.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The irony is Kavanaugh is that independent moderate that media told us the partisan hack that Garland was supposed to be..

If I read the decision correctly this case was mostly decided by saying that the issue was already settled.  In a Scalia decision.  Does aligning with Scalia really make one a moderate?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Because it took tortured logic to come up with a just solution.  The court had redefined what seizure and arrest means to get to the desired ruling.  The ruling has more to do with defining seizure in order to allow a lawsuit.  The conservatives probably felt the woman should be allowed to sue, they just could not justify it based on the the fourth amendment argument.  The principle of original intent is the conservative value.  At least that is how I took it from skimming a few of the arguments. I am sure that is not a lawyerly explanation.    

Maybe they did that in 1991!  When that crazy radical Scalia penned the basis used here.

ETA:  And when you get to the dissent Gorsuch flat out states that the court had accepted this case because circuit courts were interpreting the earlier Scalia decision in two different fashions and this case was to settle the controversy.  So even if you prefer Gorsuch's interpretation of what Scalia originally stated this decision didn't really redefine anything but chose from competing existing definitions.  

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not following super closely but from what I have seen it sounds like approximately all of the justices are tearing chunks out of the NCAA today re: amateurism.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I'm not following super closely but from what I have seen it sounds like approximately all of the justices are tearing chunks out of the NCAA today re: amateurism.

If there's one topic that can unite all of us in these polarized times, it's that the NCAA needs to be nuked from orbit.

  • Thinking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If there's one topic that can unite all of us in these polarized times, it's that the NCAA needs to be nuked from orbit.

It's heart-warming to see.

I have no idea what the players are asking for, but the Justices comments that have hit my feed in the last couple hours make it seem like radical change is likely.

I've seen Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Kagan all specifically called out as skeptical of the NCAA arguments.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If there's one topic that can unite all of us in these polarized times, it's that the NCAA needs to be nuked from orbit.

only way to be sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sand said:

Thomas argues that Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. should be treated as utilities.  Given their current position in society it's hard to argue that they're not, IMO.

Seems like a very tenuous argument - and not a road anyone really wants to go down.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

Seems like a very tenuous argument - and not a road anyone really wants to go down.

As far as a policy reason goes, it's not really a tenuous argument that nobody really wants to go down. In fact, I'd say conservatives are itching for it. It's an argument I certainly anticipated people making in one of the "Twitter bans..." threads. It's quite easy to see it that way. It's not correct, and essentially strips Big Tech of its property rights, but so didn't California in the mall cases and the S. Ct. in the Company Town case. And that was just free speech trumping property rights.

Private property is certainly not as sacrosanct as we think. Just look at Kelo and you'll understand exactly how private property can quickly be subsumed under the rubric of the common good, especially what constitutes a "public use." Justice Stevens good and undermined two centuries of jurisprudence with a redefinition of a word. 

I understand the doctrinal differences, too, it's just that this newfound liberal belief in sacrosanct property rights after the Ninth Circuit free speech/mall cases and the S. Ct. in Kelo is almost laughable. Especially since the belief that Big Tech has this uber property right is held by liberals and is what makes it funny on a macro level. (Conservatives quick to disavow the right, liberals swearing by property rights and restraints, that is.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rockaction said:

As far as a policy reason goes, it's not really a tenuous argument that nobody really wants to go down. In fact, I'd say conservatives are itching for it. It's an argument I certainly anticipated people making in one of the "Twitter bans..." threads. It's quite easy to see it that way. It's not correct, and essentially strips Big Tech of its property rights, but so didn't California in the mall cases and the S. Ct. in the Company Town case. And that was just free speech trumping property rights.

Private property is certainly not as sacrosanct as we think. Just look at Kelo and you'll understand exactly how private property can quickly be subsumed under the rubric of the common good, especially what constitutes a "public use." Justice Stevens good and undermined two centuries of jurisprudence with a redefinition of a word. 

I understand the doctrinal differences, too, it's just that this newfound liberal belief in sacrosanct property rights after the Ninth Circuit free speech/mall cases and the S. Ct. in Kelo is almost laughable. Especially since the belief that Big Tech has this uber property right is held by liberals and is what makes it funny on a macro level. (Conservatives quick to disavow the right, liberals swearing by property rights and restraints, that is.)

The last time Democrats supported property rights was slavery.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a road anyone wants to go down - because it does not favor either side.

The Right want to both ensure accessibility and remove immunity claims - those are not compatible positions.  When you start to hold companies liable for content on their platforms, you necessitate heavy moderation.

Similarly, the Left are happy to allow companies to ban users - and let public pressure dictate access - because that mostly favors left-leaning views.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

The Right want to both ensure accessibility and remove immunity claims - those are not compatible positions. 

Heavy moderation is not access, though. It's content-limiting, but not access-limiting.

It's not as contradictory as one might think. It might make the digital space undesirable due to heavy moderation, but that undesirability does not mean a lack of access for individuals who want to join.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the tech nerds on here, the Supreme Court reached the correct result in Google v Oracle. The Verge quoting the holding:

Quote

Google’s copying of the API to reimplement a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, constituted a fair use of that material.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sand said:

Thomas argues that Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. should be treated as utilities.  Given their current position in society it's hard to argue that they're not, IMO.

I haven't read the link yet.

I think treating Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al. as utilities would be ... extremely novel ... and not in a good way. The thing about gas, water, electric, etc. is that (a) they are necessary services that people really can't do without, and (b) a specific provider is granted a monopoly in a given jurisdiction because it's stupid for more than one company to lay duplicative pipes or wires in the same area.

People can live without Facebook. And also, it's not stupid for Facebook and Twitter to serve the same people. If people access Facebook using their cable provider, the cable provider is a utility (although even that is being eroded given the competing forms of data transfer). But Facebook is not a utility because Twitter et al. can use the same cables it does. There's no wasteful duplication (other than attention spans) in using both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sand said:

Thomas argues that Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. should be treated as utilities.  Given their current position in society it's hard to argue that they're not, IMO.

its a depressing, but not absurd position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, joffer said:

its a depressing, but not absurd position.

I have yet to find a publicly expressed opinion from a SCOTUS member to be absurd, even from those whom I share substantial philosophical disagreements.  All of them are incredibly learned, intelligent people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I haven't read the link yet.

I think treating Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al. as utilities would be ... extremely novel ... and not in a good way. The thing about gas, water, electric, etc. is that (a) they render necessary services that people really can't do without, and (b) a specific provider is granted a monopoly in a given jurisdiction because it's stupid for more than one company to lay duplicative pipes or wires in the same area.

People can live without Facebook. And also, it's not stupid for Facebook and Twitter to serve the same people. If people access Facebook using their cable provider, the cable provider is a utility (although even that is being eroded given the competing forms of data transfer). But Facebook is not a utility because Twitter et al. can use the same cables it does. There's no wasteful duplication (other than attention spans) in using both.

I think you underestimate how important the internet is in people's lives.  The power of these corporations is enormous in controlling which products people see, what news people have access to, which viewpoints are allowed a platform.  And let's not forget these corporations are tracking our every movement, are listening to private conversations, have access to our email, track every website we visit, know what we searched, store our passwords, and could easily access our financial accounts if they so desired.   These corporations by most legal definitions constituted a monopoly (Google has 92 percent of search market)  and their new found power under the guise of fighting hate, have become the truth police and aggressively censoring viewpoints they disagree with. 

These corporations have effectively become unelected dictators.  I really don't see much difference in having a communist dictatorship like China controlling the internet or a few corporate giants controlling it.  Free speech and open competitive markets are IMHO the two most important foundations that separate the free world from oppressive authoritarian states. 

Traditionally it was powerful rulers and government which have oppressed people.  But there is no real difference if the oppression comes from large powerful corporate monopolies. Oppression is oppression and these corporate monopolies are becoming more and more oppressive and powerful by the minute. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....if one stops feeding the beast, it dies.  This notion that social media "happens TO" people is incredibly naive and lazy.  Social media is in the "time farming" business.  They don't care what content it is that's allowing them to consume your time.  They just care that they have your attention.  I promise you, if you change your behavior, these platforms will change.  It's crazy for me to sit here and watch people piss and moan about social media while willfully being farmed of their time/attention by paying attention to it.  If you don't like what social media is today, be pissed at the people who feed it and mold the algorithms to be what they are with their choices/actions.  Social media isn't something happening TO you.  It's something you're helping create, alter and grow.  Have some personal accountability in this ####show you've helped create FFS  :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Again....if one stops feeding the beast, it dies.  This notion that social media "happens TO" people is incredibly naive and lazy.  Social media is in the "time farming" business.  They don't care what content it is that's allowing them to consume your time.  They just care that they have your attention.  I promise you, if you change your behavior, these platforms will change.  It's crazy for me to sit here and watch people piss and moan about social media while willfully being farmed of their time/attention by paying attention to it.  If you don't like what social media is today, be pissed at the people who feed it and mold the algorithms to be what they are with their choices/actions.  Social media isn't something happening TO you.  It's something you're helping create, alter and grow.  Have some personal accountability in this ####show you've helped create FFS  :lol: 

I'm not sure there's much history where policies designed around the strongest members of society worked out well for the country.

It's information pollution of the public space IMO, and the external costs of it have to be pushed back onto the people facilitating it, the same way we did with corporate polluters in the 70s.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I'm not sure there's much history where policies designed around the strongest members of society worked out well for the country.

It's information pollution of the public space IMO, and the external costs of it have to be pushed back onto the people facilitating it, the same way we did with corporate polluters in the 70s.

I think we agree here if "onto the people facilitating it" is us as consumers.  We are responsible for dictating what takes our attention.  

ETA:  And honestly, there is no real comparison in our history that we can use in measuring social media IMO.  It's unique in almost every way given the evolution in technology and what these companies are valuing today in the name of a "free" service.

Edited by The Commish
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Again....if one stops feeding the beast, it dies.  This notion that social media "happens TO" people is incredibly naive and lazy.  Social media is in the "time farming" business.  They don't care what content it is that's allowing them to consume your time.  They just care that they have your attention.  I promise you, if you change your behavior, these platforms will change.  It's crazy for me to sit here and watch people piss and moan about social media while willfully being farmed of their time/attention by paying attention to it.  If you don't like what social media is today, be pissed at the people who feed it and mold the algorithms to be what they are with their choices/actions.  Social media isn't something happening TO you.  It's something you're helping create, alter and grow.  Have some personal accountability in this ####show you've helped create FFS  :lol: 

If they don't care about content, then why do I see unviolent posts censored on a daily basis with some 'fact checking link underneath which is not fact-based but just challenging thr spin?  Seems like someone cares a lot about content.  And if Google does not care about content, why do stories with liberally slanted viewpoints dominate the search results. They absolutely care about content eventbough from a business perspective it can't be positive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

If they don't care about content, then why do I see unviolent posts censored on a daily basis with some 'fact checking link underneath which is not fact-based but just challenging thr spin?  Seems like someone cares a lot about content.  And if Google does not care about content, why do stories with liberally slanted viewpoints dominate the search results. They absolutely care about content eventbough from a business perspective it can't be positive. 

Because that's what gets the clicks....this isn't complicated.  The guys who created this stuff are flat out telling you this is the case if you take 5 seconds to get information from OUTSIDE the MSM/SMB (Social Media Bubble) in this country.  You're missing the entire forest for a couple trees :shrug: 

Let's start with the basics.  Pick your social media outlet of choice.  If you were to compare my timeline and yours do you think they'd be remotely similar?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I think you underestimate how important the internet is in people's lives.

And yet there are those who don't include Biden's plan to increase broadband access to rural areas as "infrastructure".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 10:30 AM, Amused to Death said:

And yet there are those who don't include Biden's plan to increase broadband access to rural areas as "infrastructure".

I'm split on this.  Right now we have a number of companies launching droves of satellites to enable access anywhere.  It may be a whole lot cheaper and more effective to subsidize those efforts than to build out a lot of wire that soon becomes redundant.  I don't know about folks in here, but in my house I have a ton of coax and ethernet cables running in the walls that aren't needed.  Same thing here.

So while internet access is infrastructure (so is water piping), I'm not sure I agree with throwing a ton of money at laying wire here.  I damn sure don't trust politicians to get the cost analysis right, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sand said:

SCOTUS rules 5-4 to lift restrictions on prayer meetings in private homes.  Given this verdict I think we can all put to bed the thought that the court is solidly conservative.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say/imply here. :oldunsure:

 

5-4 in favor for a conservative position - after being 5-4 against that position when RBG was on the court.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

I am not even sure what you are trying to say/imply here. :oldunsure:

 

5-4 in favor for a conservative position - after being 5-4 against that position when RBG was on the court.

Many indicate that the court is now 6-3 conservative.  It's truly nowhere near that, particularly after a decision like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sand said:

Many indicate that the court is now 6-3 conservative.  It's truly nowhere near that, particularly after a decision like this.

It really is.

Roberts is still very much a conservative - not a swing vote in the traditional sense of the role.  Even here - he just swung it from 6-3 to 5-4.

 

(And, a cursory read suggests to me the dissent really had the better argument here - but that won't matter in this court.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

SCOTUS rules 5-4 to lift restrictions on prayer meetings in private homes.  Given this verdict I think we can all put to bed the thought that the court is solidly conservative.

From a conservative standpoint, prayer meetings in private homes are good, so restrictions on them are bad, so lifting restrictions is good. This would therefore seem like a conservative result, inasmuch as constitutional analysis can be conservative or liberal.

In any case, I agree that this isn't a conservative court because I'm super weird and prefer to view the court as being apolitical.

But for people who are less weird than me, this conservative result would seem to be evidence in favor of a conservative court rather than against it, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

From a conservative standpoint, prayer meetings in private homes are good, so restrictions on them are bad, so lifting restrictions is good. This would therefore seem like a conservative result, inasmuch as constitutional analysis can be conservative or liberal.

In any case, I agree that this isn't a conservative court because I'm super weird and prefer to view the court as being apolitical.

But for people who are less weird than me, this conservative result would tend to be evidence in favor of a conservative court rather than against it, no?

Yes, but not nearly so conservative as many make it out to be.  A 5-4 decision on a basic first amendment issue isn't exactly an overwhelming endorsement that SCOTUS is heavily conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sand said:

Yes, but not nearly so conservative as many make it out to be.  A 5-4 decision on a basic first amendment issue isn't exactly an overwhelming endorsement that SCOTUS is heavily conservative.

I haven't read anything about the case (other than in this thread), but most cases that get to SCOTUS aren't all that basic.

Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan clearly lean left, but probably not by as much as Thomas and Alito lean right. Roberts is moderately right. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett are undoubtedly on the right, but I don't have a feel for how moderate they may or may not be.

None of the Justices are reliably, automatically, a vote for the left or the right. Every one of them is a capable thinker willing to go against partisan orthodoxy to get what they believe to be the right answer in a particular case.

So on the one hand, I agree that "the Supreme Court is very conservative" is overblown. It's not a partisan organ.

On the other hand, if we are just counting general leanings, it is pretty clearly 6-3 in the direction of being conservative. (Not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

Yes, but not nearly so conservative as many make it out to be.  A 5-4 decision on a basic first amendment issue isn't exactly an overwhelming endorsement that SCOTUS is heavily conservative.

It does not have to be "heavily" conservative - it just has to be 5-4 conservative.

Before Coney replaced RGB, I think you had a good argument that the court was relatively balanced - as much as a 9-member court could be.  Roberts has taken over Kennedy's role as the swing vote - and I think of all the members, he is the most capable of seeing cases in a non-partisan manner.

(I also think he sees this shift to the right as part of his legacy - since this will be the Robert's Court - and he would prefer it not be an obvious shift).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...