Public approval of SCOTUS at highest level in a decade - Dem approval up, Republican down

[Statilius the Epicurean]

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/status/1291030455953903616

Roberts is winning!

[SnowLabrador]

This is highly disturbing. I'll let Stephen Wolf summarize my thoughts on this:

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1291089045368389633

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United now?

[brucejoel99]

Makes sense, they're the only well-functioning branch left.

[MarkD]

Democrats like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United now?

Tee-hee. They've got some long-term memory problems.

Many liberals had been brought up to believe that whatever happened to the other branches of  government, the Supreme Court belonged to "us." It was "ours." Nobody could take that away. We could count on the Justices, perhaps not in every case, but certainly over the long run. They would set matter straight when it came down to it.
It was for this reason that so many liberals of my generation became lawyers and so much faith was placed in litigation. The corollary is that even fewer became politicians, political organizers, and political fund-raisers. We eschewed the rough-and-tumble of dirty politics in favor of the neat and elite high road of the judiciary. ...
[Liberals] were stunned, however, when the two members of the [Supreme Court's] soft right joined the three members of the hard right in the most activist, unprecedented, and unprincipled decision in recent Supreme Court history. Morever, [Bush v. Gore] was rendered in the most visible and controversial case ever, thus sending a powerful message that the justices would not be deterred by public opprobrium, academic criticism, or even charges of partisan politics. Finally, the liberals were shocked into the realization that they had lost the Court. Not only was it no longer "theirs" but it was now squarely in the hands of their political and ideological enemies. The Supreme Court was now a full-fledged activist, right-wing, Republican court. (Supreme Injustice; How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, Alan Dershowitz, published 2001.)

But that book was published 19 years ago, and so as I said, liberals/Democrats seem to have long-term memory problems.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Makes sense, they're the only well-functioning branch left.

I don't think constant 5-4 partisan decisions and a majority facilitating a constant attack on voting rights among other things is at all well functioning.

[politicallefty]

Makes sense, they're the only well-functioning branch left.

I don't think constant 5-4 partisan decisions and a majority facilitating a constant attack on voting rights among other things is at all well functioning.

Indeed, it really is the hallmark of the Roberts Court to uphold restricting the franchise as much as possible. They really have no problem upholding what really is modern day Jim Crow.

I have a pretty strong understanding of history. We have not had what anyone can call a liberal Court since the early 1970s. I would agree that constant 5-4 decisions are not healthy for the Court and they are not healthy for the country. This term was an anomaly though. It had few cases as some were pushed to the next term due to the coronavirus. Roberts himself was in the majority in all but 2 cases I think. He has taken full control over this Court. It remains to be seen as to why. It's certainly possible he fears a backlash and a potential expansion of the Court.

[Beet]

This is why liberals are horrible at Court politics. They start slobbering over one or two bones thrown their way in a Court that has gutted the Voting Rights Act, granted the president broad executive powers and immunities, shielded his tax returns, legalized corruption, protected gerrymandering, and gutted workers' rights. Roberts is the reason Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina don't have Medicaid expansion today. But they ruled in favor of LGBT rights and made a very narrow abortion favorable ruling so it's all OK. Sickening.

[politicallefty]

This is why liberals are horrible at Court politics. They start slobbering over one or two bones thrown their way in a Court that has gutted the Voting Rights Act, granted the president broad executive powers and immunities, shielded his tax returns, legalized corruption, protected gerrymandering, and gutted workers' rights. Roberts is the reason Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina don't have Medicaid expansion today. But they ruled in favor of LGBT rights and made a very narrow abortion favorable ruling so it's all OK. Sickening.

That's only part of it. The other part is that Democrats have been hideously unlucky when it comes to vacancies. A quick search found this since 1969:

Nixon 1: 4
Nixon/Ford: 1
Carter: 0
Reagan 1: 1
Reagan 2: 3
HW Bush: 2
Clinton 1: 2
Clinton 2: 0
GWB 1: 0
GWB 2: 2
Obama 1: 2
Obama 2: 0
Trump: 2

Obviously, yes, the Scalia successor was stolen from Obama. However, the tally on Supreme Court confirmations in the past roughly 50 years is 15R-4D. That should tell you everything about jurisprudence in this country over the past few decades.

[Beet]

This is why liberals are horrible at Court politics. They start slobbering over one or two bones thrown their way in a Court that has gutted the Voting Rights Act, granted the president broad executive powers and immunities, shielded his tax returns, legalized corruption, protected gerrymandering, and gutted workers' rights. Roberts is the reason Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina don't have Medicaid expansion today. But they ruled in favor of LGBT rights and made a very narrow abortion favorable ruling so it's all OK. Sickening.

That's only part of it. The other part is that Democrats have been hideously unlucky when it comes to vacancies. A quick search found this since 1969:

Nixon 1: 4
Nixon/Ford: 1
Carter: 0
Reagan 1: 1
Reagan 2: 3
HW Bush: 2
Clinton 1: 2
Clinton 2: 0
GWB 1: 0
GWB 2: 2
Obama 1: 2
Obama 2: 0
Trump: 2

Obviously, yes, the Scalia successor was stolen from Obama. However, the tally on Supreme Court confirmations in the past roughly 50 years is 15R-4D. That should tell you everything about jurisprudence in this country over the past few decades.

That's not luck. That's because the Republicans established dominance in the Reagan-Bush era when they won many presidential elections and many of those judges (such as O'Connor and Kennedy) prefer to retire under Republicans. Combine that with the fact that the Republicans have gotten into office in narrow elections based on the Electoral College. But even when Obama was in office, he was slow to nominate judges and the Senate was slow to confirm them.

The essential reason is that liberals do not take the Court with the seriousness it deserves.

[politicallefty]

That's not luck. That's because the Republicans established dominance in the Reagan-Bush era when they won many presidential elections and many of those judges (such as O'Connor and Kennedy) prefer to retire under Republicans. Combine that with the fact that the Republicans have gotten into office in narrow elections based on the Electoral College. But even when Obama was in office, he was slow to nominate judges and the Senate was slow to confirm them.

The essential reason is that liberals do not take the Court with the seriousness it deserves.

Perhaps, but I was trying to give a word. Thurgood Marshall being succeeded by Clarence Thomas is without question one of the worst things to happen to the Court. The only significant change to the left in a seat in recent decades was Byron White being replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. O'Connor left because her husband was in the late stages of Alzheimer's. She may very well have retired even if Kerry had won. If he'd won, he would have also nominated the replacement to Rehnquist. Kennedy was a Republican and he wanted to be replaced by a Republican. The fact that he retired in 2018 should really surprise no one.

I agree about Obama. He should have nominated lower court judges as fast as possible and the Senate should have confirmed them forthwith, especially after Reid utilized the nuclear option over the DC Circuit Court. It's inexplicable to me that the first Circuit Court appointee wasn't confirmed until late September and only three in total for his first year. Trump is only 2 short right now of Obama did in 8 years. That's very disturbing, especially when you hear about the qualifications of many of these appointees.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This is why liberals are horrible at Court politics. They start slobbering over one or two bones thrown their way in a Court that has gutted the Voting Rights Act, granted the president broad executive powers and immunities, shielded his tax returns, legalized corruption, protected gerrymandering, and gutted workers' rights. Roberts is the reason Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina don't have Medicaid expansion today. But they ruled in favor of LGBT rights and made a very narrow abortion favorable ruling so it's all OK. Sickening.

To be fair Roberts may be the reason twelve states do not have Medicaid expansion, but he is also the reason the other thirty-eight states have it; if a new section 4(b) of the VRA has not been passed you have to complain with Congress; the President already enjoyed broad powers and immunities; and what does "legalized corruption" even mean?



Also, I find nothing wrong with having an opinion of the Supreme Court that goes by term. Why is it so sickening if person X had a bad opinion of the court in, say, 2010 and a good one in 2020? Based only on what it did respectively in 2010 and 2020?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

But they ruled in favor of LGBT rights and made a very narrow abortion favorable ruling so it's all OK. Sickening.

Even Bostock was a conservative win of sorts: Roberts and Gorsuch defected so Roberts could give Gorsuch (and not a liberal justice) the opinion, which carved out a "religious liberty" exemption allowing LGBT people to be legally discriminated against in certain spheres, continuing the court's pushback from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission a couple of years ago.

[brucejoel99]

It's not the job of the Court to rule on the basis of your political mindsets. It's the job of the Court to rule based on the law & the Constitution. If rulings that respect those principles piss you off, then let anger reign.

Also, I find nothing wrong with having an opinion of the Supreme Court that goes by term. Why is it so sickening if person X had a bad opinion of the court in, say, 2010 and a good one in 2020? Based only on what it did respectively in 2010 and 2020?

This.

[politicallefty]

It's not the job of the Court to rule on the basis of your political mindsets. It's the job of the Court to rule based on the law & the Constitution. If rulings that respect those principles piss you off, then let anger reign.

Would you feel the same if Ruth Bader Ginsburg were replaced by a Trump appointee?

[brucejoel99]

It's not the job of the Court to rule on the basis of your political mindsets. It's the job of the Court to rule based on the law & the Constitution. If rulings that respect those principles piss you off, then let anger reign.

Would you feel the same if Ruth Bader Ginsburg were replaced by a Trump appointee?

I probably wouldn't agree with such an appointee's views of the law & the Constitution (unless they turn out to be another Gorsuch, who's turned out to be quite the surprise, especially when it comes to matters of criminal justice), but unless they're literally an Alito clone, I wouldn't doubt the sincerity of their interpretations, let alone the validity thereof.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's not the job of the Court to rule on the basis of your political mindsets. It's the job of the Court to rule based on the law & the Constitution. If rulings that respect those principles piss you off, then let anger reign.

The US constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, labour relations, health insurance, felons voting and virtually every controversial issue in the 21st century. All SCOTUS justices in fact make up their rulings based on their political mindsets: that is why there is a straight liberal/conservative split on countless cases. To assert that a majority conservative court handing conservatives victory after victory is just because they're following law as if Roberts' political philosophy just happens to perfectly align with what the law says, when what is in question is the content of that law, is a profoundly idiotic take.

[brucejoel99]

It's not the job of the Court to rule on the basis of your political mindsets. It's the job of the Court to rule based on the law & the Constitution. If rulings that respect those principles piss you off, then let anger reign.

The US constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, labour relations, health insurance, felons voting and virtually every controversial issue in the 21st century. All SCOTUS justices in fact make up their rulings based on their political mindsets: that is why there is a straight liberal/conservative split on countless cases. To assert that a majority conservative court handing conservatives victory after victory is just because they're following law as if Roberts' political philosophy just happens to perfectly align with what the law says, when what is in question is the content of that law, is a profoundly idiotic take.

When it comes to interpreting the law, there are different ways that reasonable people would interpret the same laws. These interpretations really aren't as simple as you attempt to paint it - the political "left-wing or right-wing" mindsets - but often come down to some degree of legal positivism vs. natural law.

Let's take the first issue you mention as an example: abortion. You're a justice & a plaintiff is arguing that she has a fundamental right to have an abortion. How do you interpret the law?

Justice #1 says that our Constitution was clearly intended to establish a limited government & the Bill of Rights establishes that. Even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say so, there's an inherent recognition that humans have bodily dignity that the government can't violate. As such, the woman has the right to decide what to do with her body & the government can't stop that.

Justice #2 says that, in a democratic society, the people make the laws. The Constitution says nothing about abortion or bodily dignity so we shouldn't assume that it applies unless the people make a law saying so. Instead, the people made a law saying abortion should be illegal & we should respect that until the people change their minds & repeal that law.

Both of these are reasonable interpretations of the law & come down not to those justice's political mindsets, but to how they interpret our legal system because our laws aren't as simple as right-wing & left-wing, & the Constitution has many different viewpoints & interpretations. To believe otherwise is the profoundly idiotic take.

[Dereich]

It's not the job of the Court to rule on the basis of your political mindsets. It's the job of the Court to rule based on the law & the Constitution. If rulings that respect those principles piss you off, then let anger reign.

The US constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, labour relations, health insurance, felons voting and virtually every controversial issue in the 21st century. All SCOTUS justices in fact make up their rulings based on their political mindsets: that is why there is a straight liberal/conservative split on countless cases. To assert that a majority conservative court handing conservatives victory after victory is just because they're following law as if Roberts' political philosophy just happens to perfectly align with what the law says, when what is in question is the content of that law, is a profoundly idiotic take.

I'm not sure you're aware how infrequent the 5-4 "party line" majority vote is. 9-0 votes are far and away the most common majority. And the 5-4 decisions tend to be mixed. SCOTUSblog did a good review of them here; while 5-4 votes with conservative victories were the most common overall, they were by no means close to a majority of the decisions. In some terms like 2016 the majority of the 5-4 decisions have been decided for the liberals.

SCOTUSblog