Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
nope. didn't say it was a standard. was looking for an informed opinionno scholars? ok.really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youSo what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore
Since you persist in using the "legal scholar standard" isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that a preponderance of legal scholars agree with you that the court is not partisan?
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youIf Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youSo what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
nope. didn't say it was a standard. was looking for an informed opinionno scholars? ok.really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youWe have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore
Since you persist in using the "legal scholar standard" isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that a preponderance of legal scholars agree with you that the court is not partisan?
you were asked if you could name any legal scholars that shared your opinion:
you: "We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes."
Dante: "really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you"
We need to ban pot and push fags back into the closet. Putin has the right idea.
nope. didn't say it was a standard. was looking for an informed opinionno scholars? ok.really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore
Since you persist in using the "legal scholar standard" isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that a preponderance of legal scholars agree with you that the court is not partisan?
you were asked if you could name any legal scholars that shared your opinion:
you: "We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes."
Dante: "really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you"
Enjoy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/politics/in-the-court-split-seemed-partisan.html?_r=0
Law Professor Calls Supreme Court s Voting Rights Restrictions Purely Partisan
Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
Tracking Supreme Court justices rulings principles of law or politics MinnPost
I didn't mean to infer you were. Lots of people in America believe in things that just aren't so: Do you agree with this?really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youSo what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youWe have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
That's ok. A multiple number of folks "seeing" decisions as "partisan decisions" also doesn't make it so.
I didn't mean to infer you were. Lots of people in America believe in things that just aren't so: Do you agree with this?really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youWe have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
That's ok. A multiple number of folks "seeing" decisions as "partisan decisions" also doesn't make it so.
Quantifying the decisions with actual numbers does.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
Yet, jurisprudence scholarship does suggest that something has changed: the court is becoming more partisan. According to a 2009 study conducted by Richard Posner and William Landes, John Robert’s court has the most partisan bench in history. The rising wave of partisanship that has swept through Congress and the White House is matched by the growing polarization of the Supreme Court.
How the Supreme Court Justices Line Up Source: Pew Research Center
The growing polarization manifests itself in the long string of 5-to-4 decisions made by the Roberts Court. In two of the most recent courts, more than 20 percent of all decisions decided by 5-to-4 votes, and that means that the rulings that have the greatest potential to influence the lives of the American public are regularly decided by the narrowest margin. Furthermore, legal scholars consider those narrow 5-to-4 decisions to be the most political, while research shows that those rulings often overturned by later courts. Even more importantly, they do not convey the same moral authority as more unanimous opinions.
That concerns Chief Justice John Roberts, whose court has decided more cases by the 5-to-4 margin than any other. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen in 2006. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.” During his 2005 confirmation hearing he also told lawmakers that he would attempt to implement “a greater degree of coherence and consensus in the opinions of the court,” citing former Chief Justice Earl Warren’s leadership in Brown v. Board of Education as an example.
The Roberts Court’s partisan, 5-to-4 decisions have upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate as well as an individuals’ right to gun ownership, limited class-action suits as well as an employee’s right to file a pay discrimination, and allowed unlimited corporate and union campaign spending. Votes on immigration, arbitration rights, voting rights, and the legality of legislative prayer were similarly divided.
Unsurprisingly, analysis conducted by Posner and Landes showed that the more ideologically polarized the Court is — meaning the greater the divide between the most conservative justice and the most liberal justice — the more often cases are decided by a 5-to-4 margin. This court is also the most conservative since the New Deal. Posner and Landes ranked 43 Supreme Court justices who served between 1937, when dissents were rare and justices rarely divided along party lines, and 2006, in terms of political ideology. They found that four of the five most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and William Rehnquist– were sitting on the bench as of 2005, while the current liberal-leaning justices do no place in the top five. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only sitting judge to rank among the top ten most liberal justices.
Read more: Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
nope. didn't say it was a standard. was looking for an informed opinionno scholars? ok.really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore
Since you persist in using the "legal scholar standard" isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that a preponderance of legal scholars agree with you that the court is not partisan?
you were asked if you could name any legal scholars that shared your opinion:
you: "We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes."
Dante: "really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you"
Enjoy!
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/politics/in-the-court-split-seemed-partisan.html?_r=0
2) Law Professor Calls Supreme Court s Voting Rights Restrictions Purely Partisan
3) Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
4) Tracking Supreme Court justices rulings principles of law or politics MinnPost
Sodomy seems pretty mindless as well. Its almost as if engaging in such acts would suggest a higher rate of mental illness among homosexuals or something. Who would have thought.We need to ban pot and push fags back into the closet. Putin has the right idea.
Speaking of non-informative spews.
Gays should be left entirely alone. You mindless bigot.
If there is something really all that wrong with pot (and I guess it's possible) then the shit should be scientifically studied, evaluated and the entire legalization versus criminalization issue addressed fairly and honestly. That might even be a basis for sound public policy.
By the way, the "SCIENCE!" is in you degenerate.
http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf
pot harms users, as do other chemicals and drugs. pot is not harmless. how it harms society is society's business.We need to ban pot and push fags back into the closet. Putin has the right idea.
Speaking of non-informative spews.
Gays should be left entirely alone. You mindless bigot.
If there is something really all that wrong with pot (and I guess it's possible) then the shit should be scientifically studied, evaluated and the entire legalization versus criminalization issue addressed fairly and honestly. That might even be a basis for sound public policy.
outside of the west, where is this not so?Why is being a gay so interesting thing in your country and all over the West? That's the point? It seems like gays are treated like extraordinary, above-average talented people or something else, so all the society have to carry about them and discuss very thoroughly
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
That's ok. A multiple number of folks "seeing" decisions as "partisan decisions" also doesn't make it so.
Quantifying the decisions with actual numbers does.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
Yet, jurisprudence scholarship does suggest that something has changed: the court is becoming more partisan. According to a 2009 study conducted by Richard Posner and William Landes, John Robert’s court has the most partisan bench in history. The rising wave of partisanship that has swept through Congress and the White House is matched by the growing polarization of the Supreme Court.
How the Supreme Court Justices Line Up Source: Pew Research Center
The growing polarization manifests itself in the long string of 5-to-4 decisions made by the Roberts Court. In two of the most recent courts, more than 20 percent of all decisions decided by 5-to-4 votes, and that means that the rulings that have the greatest potential to influence the lives of the American public are regularly decided by the narrowest margin. Furthermore, legal scholars consider those narrow 5-to-4 decisions to be the most political, while research shows that those rulings often overturned by later courts. Even more importantly, they do not convey the same moral authority as more unanimous opinions.
That concerns Chief Justice John Roberts, whose court has decided more cases by the 5-to-4 margin than any other. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen in 2006. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.” During his 2005 confirmation hearing he also told lawmakers that he would attempt to implement “a greater degree of coherence and consensus in the opinions of the court,” citing former Chief Justice Earl Warren’s leadership in Brown v. Board of Education as an example.
The Roberts Court’s partisan, 5-to-4 decisions have upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate as well as an individuals’ right to gun ownership, limited class-action suits as well as an employee’s right to file a pay discrimination, and allowed unlimited corporate and union campaign spending. Votes on immigration, arbitration rights, voting rights, and the legality of legislative prayer were similarly divided.
Unsurprisingly, analysis conducted by Posner and Landes showed that the more ideologically polarized the Court is — meaning the greater the divide between the most conservative justice and the most liberal justice — the more often cases are decided by a 5-to-4 margin. This court is also the most conservative since the New Deal. Posner and Landes ranked 43 Supreme Court justices who served between 1937, when dissents were rare and justices rarely divided along party lines, and 2006, in terms of political ideology. They found that four of the five most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and William Rehnquist– were sitting on the bench as of 2005, while the current liberal-leaning justices do no place in the top five. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only sitting judge to rank among the top ten most liberal justices.
Read more: Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
That is still folks deciding that a decision is left or right as the basis for their assigning of values to the respective decisions.
I suspect the process might come down more to the notion that the liberal jurists are prone to ignoring the strictures of the Constitution BECAUSE the legislation that made the laws or the policies that implemented the laws were political in nature AND willfully disobedient to the Constitutional strictures. Therefore, any ruling that properly tries to weight the Constitutional commands in the analysis would APPEAR to be a partisan decision.
Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
That's ok. A multiple number of folks "seeing" decisions as "partisan decisions" also doesn't make it so.
Quantifying the decisions with actual numbers does.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
Yet, jurisprudence scholarship does suggest that something has changed: the court is becoming more partisan. According to a 2009 study conducted by Richard Posner and William Landes, John Robert’s court has the most partisan bench in history. The rising wave of partisanship that has swept through Congress and the White House is matched by the growing polarization of the Supreme Court.
How the Supreme Court Justices Line Up Source: Pew Research Center
The growing polarization manifests itself in the long string of 5-to-4 decisions made by the Roberts Court. In two of the most recent courts, more than 20 percent of all decisions decided by 5-to-4 votes, and that means that the rulings that have the greatest potential to influence the lives of the American public are regularly decided by the narrowest margin. Furthermore, legal scholars consider those narrow 5-to-4 decisions to be the most political, while research shows that those rulings often overturned by later courts. Even more importantly, they do not convey the same moral authority as more unanimous opinions.
That concerns Chief Justice John Roberts, whose court has decided more cases by the 5-to-4 margin than any other. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen in 2006. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.” During his 2005 confirmation hearing he also told lawmakers that he would attempt to implement “a greater degree of coherence and consensus in the opinions of the court,” citing former Chief Justice Earl Warren’s leadership in Brown v. Board of Education as an example.
The Roberts Court’s partisan, 5-to-4 decisions have upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate as well as an individuals’ right to gun ownership, limited class-action suits as well as an employee’s right to file a pay discrimination, and allowed unlimited corporate and union campaign spending. Votes on immigration, arbitration rights, voting rights, and the legality of legislative prayer were similarly divided.
Unsurprisingly, analysis conducted by Posner and Landes showed that the more ideologically polarized the Court is — meaning the greater the divide between the most conservative justice and the most liberal justice — the more often cases are decided by a 5-to-4 margin. This court is also the most conservative since the New Deal. Posner and Landes ranked 43 Supreme Court justices who served between 1937, when dissents were rare and justices rarely divided along party lines, and 2006, in terms of political ideology. They found that four of the five most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and William Rehnquist– were sitting on the bench as of 2005, while the current liberal-leaning justices do no place in the top five. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only sitting judge to rank among the top ten most liberal justices.
Read more: Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
That is still folks deciding that a decision is left or right as the basis for their assigning of values to the respective decisions.
I suspect the process might come down more to the notion that the liberal jurists are prone to ignoring the strictures of the Constitution BECAUSE the legislation that made the laws or the policies that implemented the laws were political in nature AND willfully disobedient to the Constitutional strictures. Therefore, any ruling that properly tries to weight the Constitutional commands in the analysis would APPEAR to be a partisan decision.
It is fallacious to believe that justices would never allow their personal biases to influence their decisions. They are just as human as you and I and that is reflected in the way they vote. When you see a preponderance of decisions were both sides agree then that is an indication that it was decided on Constitutional merits. On the other hand when you see split decisions that is an indication of a polarized court that is making political decisions.
What we have today is a SCOTUS that reflects Republican appointments to the bench since they have been in the Oval office for 20 of the last 34 years.
nope. didn't say it was a standard. was looking for an informed opinionno scholars? ok.Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore
Since you persist in using the "legal scholar standard" isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that a preponderance of legal scholars agree with you that the court is not partisan?
you were asked if you could name any legal scholars that shared your opinion:
you: "We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes."
Dante: "really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you"
Enjoy!
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/politics/in-the-court-split-seemed-partisan.html?_r=0
2) Law Professor Calls Supreme Court s Voting Rights Restrictions Purely Partisan
3) Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
4) Tracking Supreme Court justices rulings principles of law or politics MinnPost
1) the article you linked to is one I use to highlight how wrong some people are. Your linked author suppose d wrongly on Kennedy and Roberts ...
2) the order appeared to be along ideological lines, not partisan lines.ideological lines in the Supreme Court are predictors that often make some legal experts look like the fools they are.
your link says 'some scholars' without naming them or the reasoning of the unnamed
3) the author is a journalist and not a legal scholar and she asks silly questions
4) another political writer
Republican appointments does not always equal Republicans get what they want. Most of the time justices try and keep politics out of the decision. You may be confusing judicial philosophy with political partisanship -- sounds like that is what you are doingSaying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.
I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.
That's ok. A multiple number of folks "seeing" decisions as "partisan decisions" also doesn't make it so.
Quantifying the decisions with actual numbers does.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
Yet, jurisprudence scholarship does suggest that something has changed: the court is becoming more partisan. According to a 2009 study conducted by Richard Posner and William Landes, John Robert’s court has the most partisan bench in history. The rising wave of partisanship that has swept through Congress and the White House is matched by the growing polarization of the Supreme Court.
How the Supreme Court Justices Line Up Source: Pew Research Center
The growing polarization manifests itself in the long string of 5-to-4 decisions made by the Roberts Court. In two of the most recent courts, more than 20 percent of all decisions decided by 5-to-4 votes, and that means that the rulings that have the greatest potential to influence the lives of the American public are regularly decided by the narrowest margin. Furthermore, legal scholars consider those narrow 5-to-4 decisions to be the most political, while research shows that those rulings often overturned by later courts. Even more importantly, they do not convey the same moral authority as more unanimous opinions.
That concerns Chief Justice John Roberts, whose court has decided more cases by the 5-to-4 margin than any other. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen in 2006. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.” During his 2005 confirmation hearing he also told lawmakers that he would attempt to implement “a greater degree of coherence and consensus in the opinions of the court,” citing former Chief Justice Earl Warren’s leadership in Brown v. Board of Education as an example.
The Roberts Court’s partisan, 5-to-4 decisions have upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate as well as an individuals’ right to gun ownership, limited class-action suits as well as an employee’s right to file a pay discrimination, and allowed unlimited corporate and union campaign spending. Votes on immigration, arbitration rights, voting rights, and the legality of legislative prayer were similarly divided.
Unsurprisingly, analysis conducted by Posner and Landes showed that the more ideologically polarized the Court is — meaning the greater the divide between the most conservative justice and the most liberal justice — the more often cases are decided by a 5-to-4 margin. This court is also the most conservative since the New Deal. Posner and Landes ranked 43 Supreme Court justices who served between 1937, when dissents were rare and justices rarely divided along party lines, and 2006, in terms of political ideology. They found that four of the five most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and William Rehnquist– were sitting on the bench as of 2005, while the current liberal-leaning justices do no place in the top five. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only sitting judge to rank among the top ten most liberal justices.
Read more: Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda
That is still folks deciding that a decision is left or right as the basis for their assigning of values to the respective decisions.
I suspect the process might come down more to the notion that the liberal jurists are prone to ignoring the strictures of the Constitution BECAUSE the legislation that made the laws or the policies that implemented the laws were political in nature AND willfully disobedient to the Constitutional strictures. Therefore, any ruling that properly tries to weight the Constitutional commands in the analysis would APPEAR to be a partisan decision.
It is fallacious to believe that justices would never allow their personal biases to influence their decisions. They are just as human as you and I and that is reflected in the way they vote. When you see a preponderance of decisions were both sides agree then that is an indication that it was decided on Constitutional merits. On the other hand when you see split decisions that is an indication of a polarized court that is making political decisions.
What we have today is a SCOTUS that reflects Republican appointments to the bench since they have been in the Oval office for 20 of the last 34 years.
pot harms users, as do other chemicals and drugs. pot is not harmless. how it harms society is society's business.We need to ban pot and push fags back into the closet. Putin has the right idea.
Speaking of non-informative spews.
Gays should be left entirely alone. You mindless bigot.
If there is something really all that wrong with pot (and I guess it's possible) then the shit should be scientifically studied, evaluated and the entire legalization versus criminalization issue addressed fairly and honestly. That might even be a basis for sound public policy.
