SCOTUS opinion watch

[cinyc]

I am going now, but one comment. When I heard Justice Kagan speak at the U of Michigan, in response to a question about whether the predictable block voting in high profile cases was a problem when it came to the credibility of the Court, she said, yes indeed it was. I most certainly agree with her. This term shows no abatement whatsoever in that syndrome. If I were in the Senate, at a confirmation hearing for a SCOTUS nominee, I would focus in on this issue like a laser beam. I would ask, is there any reason to believe that you would not be just another block voter? What can you say to give me some comfort that your votes will not be close to utterly predictable?

This term, according to SCOTUSBlog, the liberals on the court voted with each other over 90% of the time, while the supposed conservatives only block voted about 70% of the time.  Democratic Presidents have been far more successful in appointing one-note idealogues than Republican Presidents.  Liberals demand and get conformity far better than conservatives, which is as much an indictment on liberalism than anything else.

[cinyc]

No, all the Democratic appointed justices are moderates.

The Republican faction just has a mix of conservative but sane Justices, Roberts and Kennedy, and arch-conservative justices, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Moderates would disagree with each other on various issues, not vote lock step 90% of the time.  At least three, if not all, of the four liberal justices are ultra-liberals whose votes on controversial cases are so preordained that no one even speculates how they will vote.  It is known beforehand.

Even Scalia, Alito and Thomas agree with each other less than 90% of the time, unlike the liberals on the court.

[cinyc]

No, all the Democratic appointed justices are moderates.

The Republican faction just has a mix of conservative but sane Justices, Roberts and Kennedy, and arch-conservative justices, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Moderates would disagree with each other on various issues, not vote lock step 90% of the time.  At least three, if not all, of the four liberal justices are ultra-liberals whose votes on controversial cases are so preordained that no one even speculates how they will vote.  It is known beforehand.

Even Scalia, Alito and Thomas agree with each other less than 90% of the time, unlike the liberals on the court.

That makes no sense. 

Why does voting together mean you're far-left?

And, isn't it more necessary to vote together if you're in the minority and you're trying to pick up a Roberts or Kennedy?

And, couldn't conservatives disagreeing just mean that there's more of a range from center-right Kennedy to far-right Thomas than there is between moderates Kagan and Breyer?
 

Moderates would be expected to vote with the conservative side sometimes and the liberal side other times on controversial issues.  At least 3 of the liberal 4 justices don't do that very often.    And someone who votes for imposing gay marriage on the country, saving Obamacare, against the death penalty and against making sure costs are considered by the EPA when imposing policy isn't a moderate by any stretch.  A moderate would be expected to vote on the other side of at least one of those cases.