SCOTUS opinion watch

[bedstuy]

Here we go again. SSM, AZ Commission, EPA regulatory standards as to whether costs have been adequately taken into account, lethal injection, armed career criminal act (Johnson). The speculation is that Scalia will say costs matter as to the EPA case, lethal injection held Constitutional, and Johnson is supposed to be a no brainer (I am not sure which way, and really don't know that case), and then SSM and AZ commission, with which we are all familiar.

And we have ... SSM! Kennedy. 14th amendment requires a state to "recognize" a marriage that was performed out of state. So it is a narrow decision as I expected, but Roberts does not sign on, which is unexpected to me. It's a 5-4 decision, usual block. Each of the 4 dissenting judges wrote their own dissent. the opinion is not in a booklet form, either because it was too thick and/or it was finished too recently.

One more box left. SSM took up three boxes all by itself! My oh my.

Huh?

[bedstuy]

Muon, I think it's not surprising that a conservative justice thinks differently about the Constitution differently from a law passed a few years ago. 

The Obamacare case was about statutory interpretation.
The gay marriage case was about substantive due process and whether or not you view LGBT people as equal human beings.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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

I would say none.

[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?
 

[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.