Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

  1. #11
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This was common knowledge as of a year or two ago, so I'm not sure why it's making headlines now. Kagan had no choice in the matter, as she was expected to recuse herself from all cases she was involved with.

    This is incorrect.

    Just 19% of decisions in the last term were 5-4. 47% were 9-0. Of the 16 cases that were 5-4, just 8 were split 5-4 in favor of the conservative majority.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...09-0707101.pdf
    Oh your right, forgive me, I should have clarified that when the court isn't ruling along ideologial lines 5-4 such as in Gore v Bush, it overwhelmingly votes in favor of business against individuals.....
    2008- "....The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/ma...supreme-t.html

    2009: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce won at least a partial victory in 13 of the 16 cases in which it filed a brief during the court term that concluded in June. The business trade group has won at least half its cases every year for more than a decade...."
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...ness-bias.html

    2010: "For the fifth term under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., it can truly be said that the business of the high court is business. Following up on last term’s decision in Citizens United, which overturned a century of precedent by invalidating all restrictions on using corporate cash to influence election campaigns under the guise of protecting free speech (See: “The Supreme Court ruling on corporate political spending”), the high court is poised to lift a variety of restrictions on the pursuit of profits and eliminate the power of individuals to fight back....
    US Supreme Court opens 2010 term with pro-corporate agenda

    We asked Goldman whether the current court is as pro-business as it’s sometimes reputed to be. Goldman’s answer was unequivocal: No. “I don’t think it makes sense to talk about a pro-business or anti-business court,” she said. “Two-thirds of the business decisions from last term cut in favor of business interests, but the justices often do not divide along ideological lines in business cases...."
    US Supreme Court opens 2010 term with pro-corporate agenda
    Yeah, they just overwhelmingly vote in favor in corporations 2/3 of the time. I think its pretty obvious that all the SCOTUS judges were selected specifically for their favorablity to corporate interests first and their ideological leanings, second.
    Last edited by Moot; 10-07-10 at 02:12 AM.

  2. #12
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Oh your right, forgive me, I should have clarified that when the court isn't ruling along ideologial lines 5-4 such as in Gore v Bush...
    Nothing about that is a clarification. You made a claim that was blatantly false, got called out on it, and are now resorting to entirely unrelated claims about cases that I doubt you really understand.

    it overwhelmingly votes in favor of business against individuals.....

    2008- "....The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/ma...supreme-t.html

    2009: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce won at least a partial victory in 13 of the 16 cases in which it filed a brief during the court term that concluded in June. The business trade group has won at least half its cases every year for more than a decade...."
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...ness-bias.html
    Not sure why you think this means anything. Most groups choose to file amicus briefs in cases where they have a very good chance of winning. The fact that they win a disproportionate number of those cases is to be expected.

    010: "For the fifth term under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., it can truly be said that the business of the high court is business. Following up on last term’s decision in Citizens United, which overturned a century of precedent by invalidating all restrictions on using corporate cash to influence election campaigns under the guise of protecting free speech (See: “The Supreme Court ruling on corporate political spending”), the high court is poised to lift a variety of restrictions on the pursuit of profits and eliminate the power of individuals to fight back....
    US Supreme Court opens 2010 term with pro-corporate agenda

    We asked Goldman whether the current court is as pro-business as it’s sometimes reputed to be. Goldman’s answer was unequivocal: No. “I don’t think it makes sense to talk about a pro-business or anti-business court,” she said. “Two-thirds of the business decisions from last term cut in favor of business interests, but the justices often do not divide along ideological lines in business cases...."
    US Supreme Court opens 2010 term with pro-corporate agenda
    Oh, well if the "World Socialist Web Site" says that the Roberts court is biased, it must be!
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 10-07-10 at 02:24 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Nothing about that is a clarification. You made a claim that was blatantly false, got called out on it, and are now resorting to entirely unrelated claims about cases that I doubt you really understand.
    My point was that Kagan's vote probably wouldn't make a bit of difference in any of the cases she recused herself from. All you did was help prove me right while missing the point entirely. Thanks.

    Not sure why you think this means anything. Most groups choose to file amicus briefs in cases where they have a very good chance of winning. The fact that they win a disproportionate number of those cases is to be expected.
    I think it proves that the court is biased in favor of business over the little guy. The cases on their docket for the upcoming year will only help prove it when they vote in favor of the drug companies and AT&T. But we'll just have to wait see on that, now won't we?

    Oh, well if the "World Socialist Web Site" says that the Roberts court is biased, it must be!
    Did the WWS say anything different than the NYT or Bloomberg? Did they get their facts wrong? What? Apparently not, or you would have disputed the points made instead of the source, which makes your comment fallacious and totally irrelevant. So what else is new?
    Last edited by Moot; 10-07-10 at 03:54 AM.

  4. #14
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    My point was that Kagan's vote probably wouldn't make a bit of difference in any of the cases she recused herself from. All you did was help prove me right while missing the point entirely. Thanks.
    Where did I say that her vote would have mattered or otherwise criticize her for recusing herself? As I noted above, this has been common knowledge since before she was even nominated.

    You claimed that the court "consistently votes 5-4 in most cases." That's not correct.

    I think it proves that the court is biased in favor of business over the little guy.
    Then you don't really understand what I just said. Imagine that the ACLU picked 10 cases that it thought it would most likely win and filed amicus briefs for only those 10 cases. If their side won 8 of those cases, would that prove that the SC was biased in favor of the ACLU?

    The cases on their docket for the upcoming year will only help prove it when they vote in favor of the drug companies and AT&T. But we'll just have to wait see on that, now won't we?
    Can you explain the legal issues involved in any of those cases and discuss how you think the court should rule?

    Did the WWS say anything different than the NYT or Bloomberg? Did they get their facts wrong? What? Apparently not, or you would have disputed the points made instead of the source, which makes your comment fallacious and totally irrelevant. So what else is new?
    I'm not interested in trying to prove something that's largely unquantifiable to someone who isn't really interested in having a real debate about this.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 10-07-10 at 04:04 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Where did I say that her vote would have mattered or otherwise criticize her for recusing herself? As I noted above, this has been common knowledge since before she was even nominated.
    I give up, where did you?

    You claimed that the court "consistently votes 5-4 in most cases." That's not correct.
    Yes, and I asked you for forgiveness for my minor transgression. So whaddya gonna do now, sue me?

    Then you don't really understand what I just said. Imagine that the ACLU picked 10 cases that it thought it would most likely win and filed amicus briefs for only those 10 cases. If their side won 8 of those cases, would that prove that the SC was biased in favor of the ACLU?
    Well, why would the SCOTUS even take up such cases if they were such done deals that could have been handled by the lower courts? Is it because the lower court rulings failed to find precedent? Isn't that usually the case with civil and criminal law?

    Can you explain the legal issues involved in any of those cases and discuss how you think the court should rule?
    Yes, but it would be easier if you just read the WWC link I provided.

    I'm not interested in trying to prove something that's largely unquantifiable to someone who isn't really interested in having a real debate about this.
    Thats fine, because I consider someone's smarmy little insults to be more banter than "real" debate, anyway.

  6. #16
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I give up, where did you?
    I didn't. That's the point.

    Well, why would the SCOTUS even take up such cases if they were such done deals that could have been handled by the lower courts? Is it because the lower court rulings failed to find precedent? Isn't that usually the case with civil and criminal law?
    The SC takes cases whenever it wants to clear up ambiguity in the law or resolve circuit splits. That does not mean that it is impossible (or even difficult) to predict how most cases will turn out. This is evident from the fact that the majority of cases are decided 9-0 or 8-1.

    Yes, but it would be easier if you just read the WWC link I provided.
    Nothing in that link even approached legal analysis. It was a bunch of two sentence summaries of cases followed by sweeping rhetoric about how the court is "pro-business."

    Legal issues that make it to the SC are complex and full of nuance. They can rarely be boiled down to things like "pro-business" or "anti-business."
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #17
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Speaking of the "Roberts court is pro-business" meme...

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...post1059027844
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Speaking of the "Roberts court is pro-business" meme...

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...post1059027844
    I posted the same Bloomberg article the blogger is referring to in your link. The article went on to say.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    2009: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce won at least a partial victory in 13 of the 16 cases in which it filed a brief during the court term that concluded in June. The business trade group has won at least half its cases every year for more than a decade...."
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...ness-bias.html
    That paragraph alone refutes Justice Breyer's claim that the court isn't overwhelmingly "pro-business."
    Last edited by Moot; 10-07-10 at 05:36 PM.

  9. #19
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Shouldn't the smart people that are in charge of the government have foreseen that she would have to recuse herself from all those cases?
    They surely did, and in fact it came up during her confirmation hearings. This is also something that will not last long, since there is a limited time before the cases she is involved in have passed through the system.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #20
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I posted the same Bloomberg article the blogger is referring to in your link. The article went on to say.....

    That paragraph alone refutes Justice Breyer's claim that the court isn't overwhelmingly "pro-business."
    I've explained this twice, but you still don't seem to understand.

    Most groups choose to file amicus briefs in cases where they have a very good chance of winning. The fact that they win a disproportionate number of those cases is to be expected.
    Imagine that the ACLU picked 10 cases that it thought it would most likely win and filed amicus briefs for only those 10 cases. If their side won 8 of those cases, would that prove that the SC was biased in favor of the ACLU?
    The fact that the CoC won most of the cases it chose to file amicus briefs for 1) does not prove that the court is "pro-business," and 2) especially doesn't prove that the court is more "pro-business" than in the past. This is straightforward logical reasoning.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •