SCOTUS opinion watch

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Tomorrow should be interesting. I'm expecting at least one of the 'big three' cases to be decided. (AZ redistricting, SSM, Obamacare)

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So if it is Ginsburg writing AZ redistricting, that still leaves the question quite open as to whether she would be writing a 5/4 for the commission or a 7/2 against it (perhaps with remarks that would also explicitly take down CA)?  It's kind of an open question which is the left or right wing position on this case (especially when you consider that Kennedy is from CA).  Democrats might actually prefer a broad ruling against the commission that lets them go Maryland on NJ, NY and WA in 2021 whereas Republicans may be very worried about CA.     

Uh, the NY proposal for 2020 was endorsed by two consecutive legislatures (the 10-12 one and the 12-14 one, and it was approved by both houses, not just the closely divided senate), so it doesn't look like the Democrats there want to gerrymander the state.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Scotusblog notes the following:

- The ruling goes out of its way to not mention a standard of scrutiny. It also does not declare gays to be a suspect class.
- The ruling seems written in a way where it cannot be easily expanded to become an argument in favor of allowing other non-traditional unions.
- While some county clerks are already beginning to issue SSM licenses, lower courts may have to step in to enforce the ruling in certain states/counties.

-----------

It is time to recognize that this is settled law. While I agree with Justice Roberts' dissent that there is no right to SSM in the Constitution, the fight against SSM is over. The fight against Polygamy begins tomorrow.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Per http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/a-nation-reacts-travis-county-texas-to-begin-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/,

The losing side in the case has 3 weeks to ask for reconsideration.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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.