Was definitely surprised to see most of the big cases had 7-0 or 6-1 decisions. Those decision were also waaay more narrow than I thought based on how they were reported.
In the term so far, including two major decisions on Thursday, the court’s expanded conservative majority is fractured and its liberals are often on the winning side.
In the foster-care case, Chief Justice Roberts managed to cobble together an improbable six-justice majority for an opinion that ruled so narrowly for a Catholic charity that Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, said it “might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops.”
The court’s three liberal members — Justices Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — joined the chief justice’s opinion, presumably with gritted teeth and to avoid an actual decision, one written on regular paper with indelible ink.
Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined, too, explaining that they were not inclined to make a major move when a minor one would resolve the case.
“Going into this term,” Professor Epstein said, “the expectation was a bunch of divided decisions with the three Democratic appointees getting the short end of the stick. So far that prediction is way off the mark. In divided cases, the Trump appointees have moved the court to the left. If anyone got the short end of the stick, it’s this year’s most conservative justice, Alito.”
Was definitely surprised to see most of the big cases had 7-0 or 6-1 decisions. Those decision were also waaay more narrow than I thought based on how they were reported.
I'm not a lawyer and this is all speculation, but I'd assume that the supreme court really doesn't want to rewrite precident or really even write precident unless it's something that is...
I'm not a lawyer and this is all speculation, but I'd assume that the supreme court really doesn't want to rewrite precident or really even write precident unless it's something that is exceptionally narrow, and let the states take the heat for the God, Guns and Abortion decisions. They're being conservative, not Conservative, in that if they start using the court as a partisan weapon, they're either going to find resistance, or be asked to do so more in the future, and why get involved in that game?
That seems to be true in this case, but that is a somewhat surprising to begin with. There's not much that can be done to resist, especially with the legislative branch still mostly gridlocked....
That seems to be true in this case, but that is a somewhat surprising to begin with.
if they start using the court as a partisan weapon, they're either going to find resistance, or be asked to do so more in the future, and why get involved in that game?
There's not much that can be done to resist, especially with the legislative branch still mostly gridlocked. The SC has, intentionally, little accountability - really, the only time I can remember that there were serious backlash was when Roosevelt almost started courtpacking, which, though it failed, greatly lessened the amount of New Deal legislation being struck down.
The SC with a winning coalition and an agenda can fundamentally change the US in many ways; the famous Warren court, for instance, basically unilaterally revolutionized human rights in the US
In particular, people definitely expected the Trump appointees to be more big C Conservative rather than Constitutionalist
I feel like we're arguing over details, but even if the Supreme Court is minimally accountable, this one don't want to stir the pot on partisanship and division if they are supposed to be the...
The SC has, intentionally, little accountability...
I feel like we're arguing over details, but even if the Supreme Court is minimally accountable, this one don't want to stir the pot on partisanship and division if they are supposed to be the final say. Maybe that will change if the Republicans sweep the houses again.
I'm somewhat confused because these aren't mutually exclusive ideas. That is the case, and what is happening currently. But that's IS the surprising result, because there's no inherent reason for...
I'm somewhat confused because these aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
this one don't want to stir the pot on partisanship and division if they are supposed to be the final say.
That is the case, and what is happening currently. But that's IS the surprising result, because there's no inherent reason for that to be the case (we've just recently had a president and a senate majority leader who have had no problems not appearing bipartisan - and those are elected officials!) - in fact, you'd probably expect the opposite given the way that senate norms for nominations have been shattered.
The huge conservative bloc on the SC could easily unilaterally cause massive precedents to be set that reflect the ideology that they've held with no real possibility of retaliation (if FDR at the height of his power couldn't court pack, a +0 D senate majority is not about to). They can do so even without Roberts. That they haven't so far, is strange.
Hm, I disagree. For one, that hypothetical is impossible, because the SC cannot make laws by fiat - something like "banning abortion" is not in their purview unless a law bans abortion, then they...
Hm, I disagree. For one, that hypothetical is impossible, because the SC cannot make laws by fiat - something like "banning abortion" is not in their purview unless a law bans abortion, then they can deem it constitutional or not.
An example of what they could do, and what people fear currently, in the most extreme case is to undo the precedent made by Roe v. Wade. Now Texas can outlaw abortion; of course California will not. And indeed, abortion will be illegal in many states. Unless Biden can get together a coalition to vote for new legislation to formally and explicitly legalize abortion on a national scale, everyone's just going to have to suck it up and accept that abortion clinics will not operate in GOP controlled states, with the GOP controlled state government enforcing that. (And what people more realistically fear is that the court allows for continual erosion of Roe v. Wade, never formally undoing it but allowing for states to make getting an abortion so arduous that it may as well be illegal)
And even in that hypothetical where "Supreme Court bans Abortion" (presumably there's some legal basis in this hypothetical), a conservative will sue an open abortion clinic in California, it will get appealed up to the SC, precedent stands, court marshals go to the clinic and board it up. If Biden wants to stop executing the law it will cause a constitutional crisis.
Y'all remember back when Obama said to give Trump a chance, that the Office has a sobering effect (or s/thg like that)? Maybe truer in the case of the SCOTUS?
Y'all remember back when Obama said to give Trump a chance, that the Office has a sobering effect (or s/thg like that)? Maybe truer in the case of the SCOTUS?
Was definitely surprised to see most of the big cases had 7-0 or 6-1 decisions. Those decision were also waaay more narrow than I thought based on how they were reported.
I'm not a lawyer and this is all speculation, but I'd assume that the supreme court really doesn't want to rewrite precident or really even write precident unless it's something that is exceptionally narrow, and let the states take the heat for the God, Guns and Abortion decisions. They're being conservative, not Conservative, in that if they start using the court as a partisan weapon, they're either going to find resistance, or be asked to do so more in the future, and why get involved in that game?
That seems to be true in this case, but that is a somewhat surprising to begin with.
There's not much that can be done to resist, especially with the legislative branch still mostly gridlocked. The SC has, intentionally, little accountability - really, the only time I can remember that there were serious backlash was when Roosevelt almost started courtpacking, which, though it failed, greatly lessened the amount of New Deal legislation being struck down.
The SC with a winning coalition and an agenda can fundamentally change the US in many ways; the famous Warren court, for instance, basically unilaterally revolutionized human rights in the US
In particular, people definitely expected the Trump appointees to be more big C Conservative rather than Constitutionalist
I feel like we're arguing over details, but even if the Supreme Court is minimally accountable, this one don't want to stir the pot on partisanship and division if they are supposed to be the final say. Maybe that will change if the Republicans sweep the houses again.
I'm somewhat confused because these aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
That is the case, and what is happening currently. But that's IS the surprising result, because there's no inherent reason for that to be the case (we've just recently had a president and a senate majority leader who have had no problems not appearing bipartisan - and those are elected officials!) - in fact, you'd probably expect the opposite given the way that senate norms for nominations have been shattered.
The huge conservative bloc on the SC could easily unilaterally cause massive precedents to be set that reflect the ideology that they've held with no real possibility of retaliation (if FDR at the height of his power couldn't court pack, a +0 D senate majority is not about to). They can do so even without Roberts. That they haven't so far, is strange.
Hm, I disagree. For one, that hypothetical is impossible, because the SC cannot make laws by fiat - something like "banning abortion" is not in their purview unless a law bans abortion, then they can deem it constitutional or not.
An example of what they could do, and what people fear currently, in the most extreme case is to undo the precedent made by Roe v. Wade. Now Texas can outlaw abortion; of course California will not. And indeed, abortion will be illegal in many states. Unless Biden can get together a coalition to vote for new legislation to formally and explicitly legalize abortion on a national scale, everyone's just going to have to suck it up and accept that abortion clinics will not operate in GOP controlled states, with the GOP controlled state government enforcing that. (And what people more realistically fear is that the court allows for continual erosion of Roe v. Wade, never formally undoing it but allowing for states to make getting an abortion so arduous that it may as well be illegal)
And even in that hypothetical where "Supreme Court bans Abortion" (presumably there's some legal basis in this hypothetical), a conservative will sue an open abortion clinic in California, it will get appealed up to the SC, precedent stands, court marshals go to the clinic and board it up. If Biden wants to stop executing the law it will cause a constitutional crisis.
Y'all remember back when Obama said to give Trump a chance, that the Office has a sobering effect (or s/thg like that)? Maybe truer in the case of the SCOTUS?