SCOTUS opinion watch

[The Other Castro]

Kennedy has been on his game lately.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

May be a bright side for environmentalists, according to Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-24/obama-may-win-by-losing-in-quirk-of-supreme-court-epa-review

[Boston Bread]

As much as I would have liked to see a 44-9 CA map, this is undeniably a victory for democracy.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

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.

Calling Kagan and Sotomayor moderates is a real stretch. You can make the argument for Breyer and maybe Ginsburg, but not the other two.

[bedstuy]

What far-left judicial activist opinions do the Democratic appointed justices hold? 

I would say none.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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?
 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?
 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on Ginsburg and Breyer since their votes were somewhat in doubt on the AZ commission case, but name me a 6-3 or 5-4 decision on which Kagan or Sotomayor took a conservative position.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The EPA ruling proves that the court is still a right-wing hack court.

[bedstuy]

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.

The recent Obamacare decision was a no-brainer non-Constitutional case.  It was not a politically grounded decision, it's a matter of textual interpretation.

The gay marriage decision was echoed by almost every single lower court.

The EPA decision was ticky-tack administrative law.

This is my point.  Imagine if the 4 liberal justices were Ralph Nader, a communist, a transgender socialist activist and Louis Farrakhan.  Would you be an arch conservative if you didn't sometimes agree with them?  No.  You would just be a sane, moderate person.  This is a similar situation.

[Torie]

I want to thank the participants on this thread. The comments are all good, and thoughtful. It is what Atlas should be. Thanks.

[The Dowager Mod]

This is interesting.

Does it mean they stay open until October?

[xavier110]

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?
 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on Ginsburg and Breyer since their votes were somewhat in doubt on the AZ commission case, but name me a 6-3 or 5-4 decision on which Kagan or Sotomayor took a conservative position.

I'm guessing you don't follow the court that closely. It happens. They nearly all have an issue from which the break from their ideological grouping. Sotomayor, especially, has strong feelings on the Fourth Amendment.

As examples, take the 5-4 Scialabba case, where Sotomayor and Kagan split, or Hall v. U.S., where Sotomayor joined the conservatives.

[Torie]

This is interesting.

Does it mean they stay open until October?

So it would seem. I don't think the Texas law will hold up myself. This is an indicator of the way the SCOTUS wind is blowing. It's no surprise.

[ElectionsGuy]

Damn. I would've loved the speculation of a different congressional map.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Damn. I would've loved the speculation of a different congressional map.

Plus Sinema would probably run for senate rather than face reelection in a tougher district. She is the best the AZ democrats have.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is interesting.

Does it mean they stay open until October?

Probably. My understanding is this is a hold until they decide whether to grant cert, and they are unlikely to decide that before October.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is interesting.

Does it mean they stay open until October?

Probably. My understanding is this is a hold until they decide whether to grant cert, and they are unlikely to decide that before October.

But, interestingly, the Court has not yet granted a stay in Mississippi (unless it does so tomorrow).  This means that the state's last abortion clinic will close.

CONGRATULATIONS, MAGNOLIA STATE ON BEING THE FIRST STATE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO LIFE!!

[Antonio the Sixth]

YES!!! Democracy wins!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is interesting.

Does it mean they stay open until October?

Probably. My understanding is this is a hold until they decide whether to grant cert, and they are unlikely to decide that before October.

But, interestingly, the Court has not yet granted a stay in Mississippi (unless it does so tomorrow).  This means that the state's last abortion clinic will close.

CONGRATULATIONS, MAGNOLIA STATE ON BEING THE FIRST STATE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO LIFE!!

Not quite. Because the effect of Mississippi's law would be to close all clinics there, the same Fifth Circuit that upheld most of Texas' law (tho a different three judge panel) blocked the application of Mississippi's law. While SCOTUS has agreed to hear Mississippi's appeal, the Fifth Circuit stay of that law remains in place.