• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No need for Dems to pack SCOTUS -it already is.

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
47,399
Reaction score
16,503
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.


There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.
That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel. In the 2014-15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power —the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year-long vacancy — the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39.
-----------
In sum, if lockstep voting and a results-driven court concern us, it isn’t the conservatives we should be worried about. While senators, journalists and academics love decrying the Roberts Five, it’s the (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg Four that represent a bloc geared toward progressive policy outcomes. To be sure, a reinvigorated conservative grouping may yet come to dominate the court — especially if Trump fills another seat — but it hasn’t happened yet.
 
I must be confused about the job the SCOTUS is supposed to do. Politics has less of an impact when your job is interpretation, but becomes a concern when your job is legislation.
 
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.

LOL an opinion piece from a right-winger. Go figure.
 
LOL an opinion piece from a right-winger. Go figure.

Can you dispute the numbers? Or are you a Bidenista who prefers "truth" over facts. :lol:
 
I must be confused about the job the SCOTUS is supposed to do. Politics has less of an impact when your job is interpretation, but becomes a concern when your job is legislation.

No confusion - this just shows that the justices normally labeled as "liberal" tend to march in lockstep more frequently than those typically labeled "conservative". It also points out that the two nominated by Trump: Gorsuch and Kavenaugh appear more pragmatic than the loonies, er . . .lefties feared.
 
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.

What far right wingers think is left is actually center
 
What far right wingers think is left is actually center
You think USA Today is far right? The piece uses the labels generally associated with each justice.
 
You think USA Today is far right? The piece uses the labels generally associated with each justice.

Clearly the justices disagree with this assessment
 
Can you dispute the numbers? Or are you a Bidenista who prefers "truth" over facts. :lol:

I have a problem with your correlation of the numbers to some perception of bias.
 
I have a problem with your correlation of the numbers to some perception of bias.
You're correct - that IS your problem. Fortunately most of the world don't have that problem. Good luck solving it.
 
"Clearly"? Based on what?

Based on their voting record.


When you think they are voting left....they believe they are just voting along what the constitution says
 
You're correct - that IS your problem. Fortunately most of the world don't have that problem. Good luck solving it.

You haven’t proven bias. So the problem is yours. It’s ok we know trump supporters can’t post honest comments.
 
Based on their voting record.


When you think they are voting left....they believe they are just voting along what the constitution says
And what they believe has definite right or left bias in it. Hello!
 
You haven’t proven bias. So the problem is yours. It’s ok we know trump supporters can’t post honest comments.
And all you have to rebut my is a biased comment? Not sure what YOU require to prove bias but all the data is in the OP.
 
I watched some of Gorsuch's interview with FOX, and he said that he and Kavanaugh rule together 70% of the time. The leftist (Obama) women rule together 90% of the time. So it seems that the conservatives appointed under the same President (Trump) are more inclined to go off their respective "reservation".
 
I must be confused about the job the SCOTUS is supposed to do. Politics has less of an impact when your job is interpretation, but becomes a concern when your job is legislation.

Well, you're not confused!
 
Name a right wing scotus decision

How about your favorite - affirming the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right not connected to any militia? Citizen's United?
 
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.

Those constitutionalists among us though don't want justices who are left or right or middle. We want justices who leave their personal ideology out of it period, and who make their decisions based on original intent of the Constitution or the existing law. I think President Trump is doing his dangdest to appoint such people to the Supreme Court.
 
No confusion - this just shows that the justices normally labeled as "liberal" tend to march in lockstep more frequently than those typically labeled "conservative". It also points out that the two nominated by Trump: Gorsuch and Kavenaugh appear more pragmatic than the loonies, er . . .lefties feared.

It shows their record of being less activist, more strict Constitutionalists. Which is the way they ALL should be.
 
How about your favorite - affirming the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right not connected to any militia? Citizen's United?

Ok let's take Heller. Would you say that when Scalia said in his opinion that he supports some gun control...that is a right wing position?
 
Based on their voting record.


When you think they are voting left....they believe they are just voting along what the constitution says

Ah, if stare decisis didn't exist, which is what it seems the leftist Justices used in their most recent dissent in Trump's victory to have immigrants apply for asylum in the first country they enter.
 
Those constitutionalists among us though don't want justices who are left or right or middle. We want justices who leave their personal ideology out of it period, and who make their decisions based on original intent of the Constitution or the existing law. I think President Trump is doing his dangdest to appoint such people to the Supreme Court.

I think the point of the original article was that those justices labeled "conservative" more often do that.
 
Back
Top Bottom