The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Those wonderful Supremes (17 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..15~16~17 [Next]
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I thought only 2 justices wrote an opinion Bob. One for and one against. Do they all write an opinion or do any that want to contribute write an opinion also?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Yes. They can either sign the majority opinion, write their own concurring opinions (coming to the same result but for different reasons), sign the dissenting opinion or write separate dissenting opinions. (Occasionally they will concur in part and dissent in part, but I don't want to make this too confusing!)
The great Gumbini
View Profile
Inner circle
2031 Posts

Profile of The great Gumbini
And once in a great while---they get it right. Well some do there is always the other side. The best part about law is you will find a law that 100 percent agrees with your position and the other side will find a law to take that law out of play. In the end a judge decides and then the appeals start. It's a wonderfully clumsy system. Liberty and JUSTICE for all (well in theory).


Good magic to all,


Eric
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
My understanding is that once the initial vote is taken, the justices rarely change their vote but have in a few select cases. Is that your understanding also?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-04-04 00:09, The great Gumbini wrote:
And once in a great while---they get it right. Well some do there is always the other side. The best part about law is you will find a law that 100 percent agrees with your position and the other side will find a law to take that law out of play. In the end a judge decides and then the appeals start. It's a wonderfully clumsy system. Liberty and JUSTICE for all (well in theory).


The Supreme Court is a court of final jurisdiction. There are no appeals.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-04-04 00:10, rockwall wrote:
My understanding is that once the initial vote is taken, the justices rarely change their vote but have in a few select cases. Is that your understanding also?


That happens most often BUT in cases that are of great import there is often a serious effort made to get a unanimous (or close to it) decision, in order to avoid an obvious partisan split. The Court is, believe it or not, sensitive to accusations that politics are a consideration in their opinions. (Even though they often are, especially with the present Court.)
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Cou......d_States

In an article in SCOTUSblog,[89] Tom Goldstein argues that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions." He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% decided by a 5-to-4 vote; barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also points to several cases that seem to fly against the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.

Is your assertion that the present court uses politics as a consideration in their decisions, (especially), supported by any facts? Have there been courts in the past 20-30 years that have had a significantly smaller number of cases decided by a split court?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Not really. The concern on the part of the court is more about the appearance of partisanship. For the most part, cases that come before the court are not of great political consequence, hence the lack of serious division on a majority of them.

But ever since Bush v. Gore, the Court has been particularly sensitive to the appearance of partisanship.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-04-04 00:35, rockwall wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Cou......d_States

In an article in SCOTUSblog,[89] Tom Goldstein argues that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions." He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% decided by a 5-to-4 vote; barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also points to several cases that seem to fly against the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.

Is your assertion that the present court uses politics as a consideration in their decisions, (especially), supported by any facts? Have there been courts in the past 20-30 years that have had a significantly smaller number of cases decided by a split court?


The political aspects are often hidden. For instance, in the Raich case, the liberal justices (plus Scalia) voted to allow Federal criminalization of medical marijuana even in a state in which it's legal, and the conservative justices (minus Scalia) voted to oppose it. The split is counterintuitive; one would expect the liberal justices to be more tolerant of medical marijuana and the conservative justices to more stridently oppose it. But while the content may not lead to an expected partisan split, the rationale clears it up a bit - as a states' rights issue, even a content-based disagreement is secondary to the potential presidential value of the rationale - any acknowledgement by the liberal justices that states have rights independent of the federal government might undermine the really important positional issue - abortion. Conversely, in the interest of states' rights, the conservative justices are typically willing to stretch their (expected) positions about the small stuff (like medical marijuana) if it gives them a foot in the door for the big stuff.

And, of course, it only takes one swing justice to turn a 5-4 into a 6-3, but just because one of them might have a pet cause doesn't make a decision apolitical when the other 8 break along party lines.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Of course the ruling in the Bush Gore case that ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, could hardly be called a partisan split as the ruling was by a 7-2 vote.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Have you read the decision and the dissent and considered the rationales behind them?

Note that the 7-2 decision you refer to was a per curiam decision regarding the equal protection clause.

What you fail to mention is that the main decision, which found that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the Florida deadline, was actually 5-4.

http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-j......olitics/
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
You mean 5-4, I think.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Yes, I just squeezed in the edit and corrected that a moment before you posted. It was 5-4.
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
I'm pretty sure the Court was sensitive to the appearance of partisanship long before the Bush Gore thing. And I think the remark about politics being a factor "especially with the present Court" is just wrong. It's not something that is new, or unique, to this court. For a long time the Court was stocked with actual politicians. Former Senators, former Governors, former Presidental advisors etc. It was because of those types of appointees that a lot of people thought the Warren court, for example, was an out of control, activist, court. Which began a trend of recruiting for the Court directly from the bench. Which is not necessarily a good thing in my opinion.

But if the Court is more partisan, or political, than ever I think the blame falls mostly to the Senate for the circus they have made out of the confirmation hearings in the last 25 years or more. They seem to be much more concerned with administering political litmus tests than whether or not a person is actually qualified to sit on the Court. What do you think is going to happen when that's how they decide the qualifications of a potential Justice?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
You're right to a large extent. But the politicization of the present Court hasn't been seen to this extent since the 1930's. I'm referring specifically to the Lochner case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04......politics

Good thoughts,

Bob
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Well, that's probably why people have been steadily losing faith in the Supreme Court. And if/when Obamacare gets overturned it's just going to get worse. Because you are going to have the President of the United States running around for six months ripping an “unelected group of people,” for destroying the crown jewel of his Presidency, passed by a “democratically elected Congress” in an “unprecedented, extraordinary step.”

Which maybe be a swell political strategy, but doesn't really help matters much in the long run.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Many people also view Citizen's United as a blatantly political decision.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 12:17, Marlin1894 wrote:
Well, that's probably why people have been steadily losing faith in the Supreme Court. And if/when Obamacare gets overturned it's just going to get worse. Because you are going to have the President of the United States running around for six months ripping an “unelected group of people,” for destroying the crown jewel of his Presidency, passed by a “democratically elected Congress” in an “unprecedented, extraordinary step.”

Which maybe be a swell political strategy, but doesn't really help matters much in the long run.


Remember back when the unelected Supreme Court thwarted the will of the people (through their democratically elected representatives) to have segregated schools?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 12:27, mastermindreader wrote:
Many people also view Citizen's United as a blatantly political decision.


Sure. And probably many other cases down through the years. Of course, it seems to switch back and forth. When people don't like a certain ruling it's blatantly political, when they like the ruling, it's Justice. More so than ever it seems. C'est la vie.
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 12:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Remember back when the unelected Supreme Court thwarted the will of the people (through their democratically elected representatives) to have segregated schools?


That's different.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Those wonderful Supremes (17 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..15~16~17 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.38 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL