Is the Supreme Court liberal or conservative?

[King]

Well they voted 5-4 to make Bush the President and 5-4 to make sodomy legal in all states...

[Sam Spade]

Neither and both.  They just interfere in legislative activities too often and try to govern from the bench.

Both conservatives and liberals do and don't do that sometimes.

[The Duke]

Liberal.  They keep upholding Roe and affirmative action, and they've become anti-death penalty.  I actually oppose the death penalty and support some affirmative action, but those are liberal positions the court is taking.

[Peter]

No easy answer; They seem to be moving different ways on different issues and I don't think Bush v. Gore is any way an indicator of the Court's general ideology.

Certainly in terms of sexual freedoms as regards sodomy, etc. they are moving liberally and I expect that in the mould of Lawrence we will see laws against fornication and adultery (where they happen to remain on the books) get struck down over the next few decades.

Abortion is a very tricky issue for the Court and certainly I can see it going conservative in the next few years. O'Connor's concurrence to Stenberg v. Carhart is the key, she drops a lot of hints as to how she will allow States to restrict abortion.

The Court has been moving liberally on the death penalty for 30 years, thats not going to change.

Establishment - well we really need an answer to this pledge question and the ten commandments question that the Court keeps dodging. I feel from reading some of the transcripts of the hearing of the pledge case that they may be going liberal, though in Locke v. Davey they hinted at being conservative.

4th Amendment - In almost all of their cases in the last 2 years on this subject they have ruled conservatively, I expect this to continue.

State Sovereignty - I dunno really: It'll be interesting to see how the assisted suicide case in OR comes out of the wash.

Terrorism + trials - They seem to nail their views down quite firmly last year in Padilla, Rasul and Hamdi; It's a liberal Court in this regard.

[Akno21]

The court ruled in favor of Bush in 2000, and I think most of us would agree that if Bush and Gore had switched positions (Bush asking for recounts, etc.), the justices would too. But during Bush's term, they have delivered decisions that have been decidely against the Bush policy, on matters from civil liberties of suspected terrorists to the sodomy decision.

The court is made up of 3 staunch conservatives, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, 2 "moderates" Kennedy, O'Connor, 2 moderate liberals Stevens and Souter, and 2 "liberals" Ginsburg and Breyer. In reality, the court is like the election, where it all comes down to a few justices, like it came down to a few states. Of course, lines are blurred often, so you can't pinpoint them into holes.

The liberals should be very happy right now, the court has 7 appointed by Republicans and only 2 appointed by Democrats, but the liberal side has won a good portion of cases recently.

[Peter]

The court ruled in favor of Bush in 2000, and I think most of us would agree that if Bush and Gore had switched positions (Bush asking for recounts, etc.), the justices would too.

This doesn't say that the Court made its decision on ideological grounds, however, but on partisan grounds. There is a subtle difference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd disagree with this characterisation of the "liberal" wing of the Court: Justice Breyer has been increasingly moderate in the last year or so in his decisions. Stevens has never really been moderate at all; In fact he and Scalia have been trading blows in their concurrences/dissents, which I must say I find amusing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on what you consider important, because on some matters yes they have, but the 4th amendment is being completely eroded according to many liberals. [For the record I agree with most of the Courts recent work on the 4th].

The fact is that it is always predict to see how Justices will behave once on the bench: Breyer might not have been as liberal as Clinton had hoped and Souter has certainly confounded many conservative expectations. In terms of Court appointments, I don't really set any store by who appoints the Justice.

[Akno21]

You've certainly studied the court more than I have, although I did watch a thing on C-SPAN in which Breyer and Scalia were having a friendly argument about using foriegn law in deciding cases, and Breyer seemed very open about using it in written decisions, which I would consider a liberal view. I would agree Breyer is certainly not as liberal as Ginsburg, and probably more conservative than Stevens as well.

My point in my final statement is that the court right now could be a lot worse for the liberals, but they're lucky because Republican Presidents didn't pick justices who have aligned with them ideologically. If Presidents Bush and Ford especially hadn't miscalculated the politics of their appointees, Souter and Stevens, the make-up of the court would certainly be different.

[opebo]

Currently it is conservative, but also has four justices that could be described as liberal, or more accurately moderate. 
Of course Oconner and Kennedy are not as extremist as Scalia, Rhenquist, and Thomas, so it could still get a lot worse.  And probably will.

[nclib]

and [voted] 5-4 to make sodomy legal in all states...

This is not really a liberal position--just not ultra-conservative.

[Peter]

and [voted] 5-4 to make sodomy legal in all states...

This is not really a liberal position--just not ultra-conservative.

In terms of a position for a legislator to take, I would agree. However, judicially this is a liberal interpretation of the substantive due process clause.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Pete; this is a bit off topic, but what think you of the recent case about the jilbab thing?