A Complete Sentence: The Second Amendment

[noharleyyet]

Perhaps the room wasn't read...

When extremely important decisions go 5/4 and that 1 vote difference is entirely a result of politics it's pretty easy to see why people say it's all horse pucky.

Clearly the deciding factor in those moments isn't a well reasoned argument, or a difference in judicial philosophy.

For a lot of folks the ramifications of these decisions go well beyond an interesting thought exercise.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Why can’t it be a difference of judicial philosophy?

Cause one team appoints their folks, the other does the same, split happens on party lines with whoever had more appointments winning.

When a case comes to the bench and everyone knows how it will go because of which president put most folks on the bench you have a problem.

I mean we bucket justices by party, we don't bucket them by philosophy.

 

[noharleyyet]

Well there was that pretty big deal in 2012 with Justice Roberts...

Cause one team appoints there folks, the other does the same, split happens on party lines with whoever had more appointments winning.

When a case comes to the bench and everyone knows how it will go because of which president put most folks on the bench you have a problem.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Well there was that pretty big deal in 2012 with Justice Roberts...

and @Jape

The google algorithm just reflects our reality back at us... no textualism present

 

[Jape]

Well there was that pretty big deal in 2012 with Justice Roberts...

Exactly, look at the California v. Texas case, Brown v. Board, Grutter v. Bollinger and 100 other landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court. Justices are actually never identified by their political party. That is what makes the judicial branch unique from the legislative and executive branches.

The evidence just does not support the proposition that supreme court justices always decide cases based on their political leanings.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Justices are actually never identified

Formally, maybe, de facto always. This wasn't true historically which I will give you, but starting with like Reagan everyone who could name every justice could probably also tell you their party.

The evidence just does not support the proposition that supreme court justices always decide cases based on their political leanings.

On specific issues, is and has been my argument.

 

[Jape]

Formally, maybe, de facto always. This wasn't true historically which I will give you, but starting with like Reagan everyone who could name every justice could probably also tell you their party.


On specific issues, is and has been my argument.

I just don’t think that is accurate, especially since many of the justices are fluid in their political stances on a variety of topics.

Again, in many landmark, far-impacting cases justices will often side with an opinion that does not align with their political affiliation. Look at the ones I cited above.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I just don’t think that is accurate, especially since many of the justices are fluid in their political stances on a variety of topics.

Again, in many landmark, far-impacting cases justices will often side with an opinion that does not align with their political affiliation. Look at the ones I cited above.

Again, in many landmark, far-impacting cases justices will often vote on party lines.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Rucho v. Common Cause
Abbott v. Perez
Shelby County v. Holder

 

[Deleted member 28227]

None of this changes my mind that that Scalia didn't want to expand the second and then found evidence to support his desire.

I like that MA has to issue me a permit.

Doesn't mean that I think the reason they have to is because there is one right answer to the law and that Scalia "found it".

Next time the court shifts the interpretation of the 2A will change, someone will claim that is the "true" meaning of the 2A and so on and so on.

Personal right v. militia right is an issue decided by 51% of the electorate and the timely or untimely death of jurists.

"Well no, it will change because jurists with a different judicial philosophy will..."

Whatever man, blue team in the house you get blue team 'philosophy'.

 

[Jape]

Again, in many landmark, far-impacting cases justices will often vote on party lines.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
Rucho v. Common Cause
Abbott v. Perez
Shelby County v. Holder

Exactly, it’s a pure split, which points directly to my conclusion that the justices decide opinions not based on political ideology, but based on what the law demands in accordance with judicial philosophy. That is exactly how the Supreme Court is supposed to function.

 

[FI460]

Exactly, it’s a pure split, which points directly to my conclusion that the justices decide opinions not based on political ideology, but based on what the law demands in accordance with judicial philosophy. That is exactly how the Supreme Court is supposed to function.

So Republicans and Democrats nominate justices based primarily on their judicial philosophy?

I'm not convinced that judicial philosophy and partisan alignment aren't synonymous in the current era of the court.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Exactly, it’s a pure split,

It's not though, a pure split would mean that you could hand them a case without necessarily knowing the outcome and that there would be an equal number of agreements and disagreements, between "liberals" and "conservatives".

But folks have actually done that, 'mathed' it out, and show demonstrably they vote on party lines. (Martin-Quinn Score)

There are literally dozens of papers put out by reputable sources in the legal field stating this fact.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2020/07/Hasen-The-Supreme-Court%E2%80%99s-Pro-Partisanship-Turn.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363511

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682690

How to rein in partisan Supreme Court justices

The Supreme Court has become more partisan, but there are solutions.

www.brookings.edu

 

[Jape]

So Republicans and Democrats nominate justices based primarily on their judicial philosophy?

I'm not convinced that judicial philosophy and partisan alignment aren't synonymous in the current era of the court.

No, the president who nominates them often does so because they think that justice will support their agenda, whatever that may be. However, there are numerous instances of justices bucking that assumption and deciding cases based on more principled reasons. That includes many of the cases cited above and frankly, the vast majority of cases, the supreme court decides in each session (we are talking about 90+% of their cases).

 

[FI460]

No, the president who nominates them often does so because they think that justice will support their agenda, whatever that may be. However, there are numerous instances of justices bucking that assumption and deciding cases based on more principled reasons. That includes many of the cases cited above and frankly, the vast majority of cases, the supreme court decides in each session (we are talking about 90+% of their cases).

I generally agree with you from a historical perspective, but I don't think that that perspective is very popular for the current era of the court for hot button issues. Certainly some surprises in historical landmark cases, but California v Texas is the only one you've mentioned for the current era, and as I recall the ruling didn't address the constitutionality as much as the argument of standing. More of a punt on a potentially landmark decision.

 

[Jape]

I generally agree with you from a historical perspective, but I don't think that that perspective is very popular for the current era of the court for hot button issues. Certainly some surprises in historical landmark cases, but California v Texas is the only one you've mentioned for the current era, and as I recall the ruling didn't address the constitutionality as much as the argument of standing. More of a punt on a potentially landmark decision.

The others I mentioned actually all include current justices on the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of cases decided by the Supreme Court are punts, so I wouldn’t read more into that than there is.

It is certainly possible that our current deeper polar political divide is not only influencing you, I, and every other American, but also all members of the government. However, based on my review of the past 20 years of Supreme Court decisions, that would represent an incredibly small number of cases that certainly is not conclusive to the argument that they are biased in their opinions.

I’m curious if the next 10 years will breed more of what you mention. It may.

 

[Jape]

It's not though, a pure split would mean that you could hand them a case without necessarily knowing the outcome and that there would be an equal number of agreements and disagreements, between "liberals" and "conservatives".

But folks have actually done that, 'mathed' it out, and show demonstrably they vote on party lines. (Martin-Quinn Score)

There are literally dozens of papers put out by reputable sources in the legal field stating this fact.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2020/07/Hasen-The-Supreme-Court%E2%80%99s-Pro-Partisanship-Turn.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363511

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682690

How to rein in partisan Supreme Court justices

The Supreme Court has become more partisan, but there are solutions.

www.brookings.edu

It actually is. A split means Justice opinions change on similarly aligned politically charged cases showing they are not beholden to a political bias. There are literally thousands of books and articles written on this topic. Again, you need to distinguish between judicial philosophy and political biases. If our laws were so determinate that all of us would reach the same conclusion, then we would have no need for judges who exercise discretion and judgment. Again, that’s exactly how it should work. Your argument is not a new one and has been in play for many years.

Here’s a great article to read on the subject from one of the nations preeminent judicial scholars:

What Does Fair and Impartial Judiciary Mean?

Director David F. Levi delivered the following keynote address on October 26, 2019, at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium at the Rendell Center in PA.

judicialstudies.duke.edu

I highly doubt anything I say, or share, could possibly persuade you from your opinion and frankly, I’m tired of trying. Sometimes I just give the Nintendo to my son because I’m tired of saying no! At any rate, I hope you find peace and some comfort in your opinions of the American judicial system.

 

[FI460]

The others I mentioned actually all include current justices on the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of cases decided by the Supreme Court are punts, so I wouldn’t read more into that than there is.

Brown v. Board

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

But even for the cases from the Roberts court don't you think it feels like we're in a very different era than that? We are coming up on 20 years now there.

It is certainly possible that our current deeper polar political divide is not only influencing you, I, and every other American, but also all members of the government. However, based on my review of the past 20 years of Supreme Court decisions, that would represent an incredibly small number of cases that certainly is not conclusive to the argument that they are biased in their opinions.

I’m curious if the next 10 years will breed more of what you mention. It may.

I'd like to be surprised by the justices, but I think agree with @wllm that they're largely predictable.

I'll also admit that perhaps my perception is influenced in that the court has finally cycled for the first time since I've been engaged with these things. Thomas is the lone holdout from my civics education days.

 

[Jape]

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

But even for the cases from the Roberts court don't you think it feels like we're in a very different era than that? We are coming up on 20 years now there.



I'd like to be surprised by the justices, but I think agree with @wllm that they're largely predictable.

I'll also admit that perhaps my perception is influenced in that the court has finally cycled for the first time since I've been engaged with these things. Thomas is the lone holdout from my civics education days.

Ha! Good call although a good one to show a surprising move by the justices that didn’t align with politics.

It really will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years. I actually think there have been some surprising opinions by several of the justices showing great impartiality, although it’s rather curious that the move to the “other” side has been made primarily by “conservative” justices. Here is a quick read showing some surprising results from the current court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/us/politics/supreme-court-conservatives-liberals.html

I do think you have pointed to the potential for the court to get caught up in all this political, bipolar mess. That was revealed forcefully when the unidentified clerk released the Dobbs opinion prematurely. We are seeing very similar actions by many of the younger generations, and what impact that will have on the justices remains to be seen.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It actually is. A split means Justice opinions change on similarly aligned politically charged cases showing they are not beholden to a political bias. There are literally thousands of books and articles written on this topic. Again, you need to distinguish between judicial philosophy and political biases. If our laws were so determinate that all of us would reach the same conclusion, then we would have no need for judges who exercise discretion and judgment. Again, that’s exactly how it should work. Your argument is not a new one and has been in play for many years.

Here’s a great article to read on the subject from one of the nations preeminent judicial scholars:

What Does Fair and Impartial Judiciary Mean?

Director David F. Levi delivered the following keynote address on October 26, 2019, at the Fair and Impartial Judiciary Symposium at the Rendell Center in PA.

judicialstudies.duke.edu

I highly doubt anything I say, or share, could possibly persuade you from your opinion and frankly, I’m tired of trying. Sometimes I just give the Nintendo to my son because I’m tired of saying no! At any rate, I hope you find peace and some comfort in your opinions of the American judicial system.

Enjoy your koolaid, at some point you'll be rudely confronted by the reality that our system is entirely contrived and that all that matters is that it works for most people, and that if it does then we largely have peace.

The idea that Justice are superheros of truth and justice... myth, sorry.

 

[Sytes]

The idea that Justice are superheros of truth and justice... myth, sorry.

A bit of an embellished comment considering the reasonable discussion, including your content.