The 5-4 Supreme Court

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

 

[buckeye45_73]

Hey rigntwinger, name the amount of opinions the clinton and obama appointees made that you disagreed with? Which ones? I suspect zero, they always vote the party line

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

So what? Notice the cherry picking of prior courts--1801 to 1940. Like history stopped in 1940. Of course up until then most justices shared similar backgrounds, schooling, and views. Since then there has been more diversity, ergo more disagreement.
But the court still decides many cases without 5-4 votes.
The whole thread is more trolling trash.

 

[Redfish]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

an excellent explanation of why the next president must be a conservative.

 

[OKTexas]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

If only the law a constitution were considered most decisions should be unanimous, judges have taken it upon themselves to guide the country they way they want instead of how it should be. Unfortunately I don't see that changing in the near future.

 

[jillian]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Justice Kennedy is not an ideologue, conservative, but not an ideologue - hence his being the swing vote.

 

[Redfish]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

actually a better solution would be to remove sotomayor and kagan and replace them with women who do not have a left wing agenda.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

Pathetically bad=Jillian doesn't like.

Speaking of pathetic, the idea of you passing yourself as someone with any legal training beyond parolee is pretty pathetic.
Perhaps the lying wise Latina vagina and the dyke need to go instead?

 

[Redfish]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

you are right about one thing, the decision on obamacare was "pathetically bad".

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

an excellent explanation of why the next president must be a conservative.

The courts used to be one or two liberals, one or two conservatives with the rest of the court being political moderates. It used to be the moderates who controlled the court
. Selecting a moderate justice used to be the prime concern
Then we started stacking the court. Republicans stacked with arch conservatives, Democrats stacked with arch liberals. It became a contest over who could "own" the court and get their agenda pushed through

 

[buckeye45_73]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

an excellent explanation of why the next president must be a conservative.

The courts used to be one or two liberals, one or two conservatives with the rest of the court being political moderates. It used to be the moderates who controlled the court
. Selecting a moderate justice used to be the prime concern
Then we started stacking the court. Republicans stacked with arch conservatives, Democrats stacked with arch liberals. It became a contest over who could "own" the court and get their agenda pushed through

And fdr started that to get his new deal through.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

So what? Notice the cherry picking of prior courts--1801 to 1940. Like history stopped in 1940. Of course up until then most justices shared similar backgrounds, schooling, and views. Since then there has been more diversity, ergo more disagreement.
But the court still decides many cases without 5-4 votes.
The whole thread is more trolling trash.

I like your viewpoint, The Rabbi, except for the partisan last sentence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

an excellent explanation of why the next president must be a conservative.

The courts used to be one or two liberals, one or two conservatives with the rest of the court being political moderates. It used to be the moderates who controlled the court
. Selecting a moderate justice used to be the prime concern
Then we started stacking the court. Republicans stacked with arch conservatives, Democrats stacked with arch liberals. It became a contest over who could "own" the court and get their agenda pushed through

And fdr started that to get his new deal through.

The court up to the end of WW's terms was certainly not liberal or moderate but more conservative. Read the decisions on segregation and labor.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

Wait a minute RW.
I thought you and CCJones didn't think there
was an issue to address with partisan biases.

Wouldn't resolving issues, BEFORE or INSTEAD of dragging them through the Court
system, PREVENT judges from being put in a position of taking one side over the other?

Should we require conflict resolution, and either consensus or separation on religious issues, at ALL levels of government to prevent from backlogging our courts this way?

 

[ron4342]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

Seriously Frank, can you think of anything Obama could say or do (Other than to put his neck on a chopping block.) that would make Thomas, Alito, or Scalia look to the Constitution rather than the gop for direction? These three have to be some of the scummiest justices this country has ever seen.
Consider the ethics of Scalia. A case comes before the SC that involves his hunting buddy cheney. A responsible judge would recuse himself based on their close friendship. Does Scalia recuse himself? Of course not. Oh, and by the way, if I am not mistaken he voted in favor of cheney. Maybe for republican's it is okay but as for me Scalia's decision not to recuse himself does NOT pass the smell test.
Cheney v. United States District Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[buckeye45_73]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

Seriously Frank, can you think of anything Obama could say or do (Other than to put his neck on a chopping block.) that would make Thomas, Alito, or Scalia look to the Constitution rather than the gop for direction? These three have to be some of the scummiest justices this country has ever seen.
Consider the ethics of Scalia. A case comes before the SC that involves his hunting buddy cheney. A responsible judge would recuse himself based on their close friendship. Does Scalia recuse himself? Of course not. Oh, and by the way, if I am not mistaken he voted in favor of cheney. Maybe for republican's it is okay but as for me Scalia's decision not to recuse himself does NOT pass the smell test.
Cheney v. United States District Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fuck off you partisan pig. Name one decision that a clinton or obama appointee made that you disagreed with

 

[Redfish]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

an excellent explanation of why the next president must be a conservative.

The courts used to be one or two liberals, one or two conservatives with the rest of the court being political moderates. It used to be the moderates who controlled the court
. Selecting a moderate justice used to be the prime concern
Then we started stacking the court. Republicans stacked with arch conservatives, Democrats stacked with arch liberals. It became a contest over who could "own" the court and get their agenda pushed through

yes, thats true. but the country has become so harshly divided between right and left there are very few moderates left.

whoever said FDR started it was correct, not only stacking the court, but the move toward socialism and removal of individual freedoms.

we are almost at the point where the country needs to be divided. one country to be governed on conservative principles of small govt and individual freedom and the other on big socialist nanny state government.

then we could see which worked best-----I have absolutely no doubt which would succeed----the one that enbraced the ideals of the constitution and the founders. Hint: not the socialist one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

Seriously Frank, can you think of anything Obama could say or do (Other than to put his neck on a chopping block.) that would make Thomas, Alito, or Scalia look to the Constitution rather than the gop for direction? These three have to be some of the scummiest justices this country has ever seen.
Consider the ethics of Scalia. A case comes before the SC that involves his hunting buddy cheney. A responsible judge would recuse himself based on their close friendship. Does Scalia recuse himself? Of course not. Oh, and by the way, if I am not mistaken he voted in favor of cheney. Maybe for republican's it is okay but as for me Scalia's decision not to recuse himself does NOT pass the smell test.
Cheney v. United States District Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you ever read any SCOTUS Opinion, especially any by Thomas?

I think not