If ACB is confirmed would this be an accurate ranking of the justices from left to right

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most Left Wing

Sotomeyer
Breyer
Kagan
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Gorsuch
Alito
Barrett
Thomas

Most Right Wing

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

Why is Gorsuch to the right of Kavanaugh?

[Skill and Chance]

I think she is a bit to the left of Alito, but clearly right of Kavanaugh.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why is Gorsuch to the right of Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh voting record is more similar to Roberts than any other justice I believe

[Big Abraham]

Gorsuch becomes the swing vote, not Kavanaugh. And although it's too early to tell, most indications I've seen seem to place Barrett to the left of Alito, but to Kavanaugh's right. Not that she couldn't drift more conservative (or more liberal) over time

[Skill and Chance]

Why is Gorsuch to the right of Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh voting record is more similar to Roberts than any other justice I believe

For now, but Gorsuch is clearly drifting left while Kavanaugh is if anything drifting right.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why is Gorsuch to the right of Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh voting record is more similar to Roberts than any other justice I believe

For now, but Gorsuch is clearly drifting left while Kavanaugh is if anything drifting right.

Gorsuch is more Libertarian so on civil liberties/executive power issues which is why he has struck down more of Trump’s executive orders so far(similarly Scalia voted with the bush admin on Gonzales vs Raich while Thomas voted agaisnt ),


But when it comes to things such as businesses issues , the application of the commerce clause , healthcare and on federalism Gorsuch is much more likely to vote with conservatives on the court  than Kavanaugh on the issues

[lfromnj]

Why is Gorsuch to the right of Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh voting record is more similar to Roberts than any other justice I believe

For now, but Gorsuch is clearly drifting left while Kavanaugh is if anything drifting right.

Gorsuch is more Libertarian so on civil liberties/executive power issues which is why he has struck down more of Trump’s executive orders so far(similarly Scalia voted with the bush admin on Gonzales vs Raich while Thomas voted agaisnt ),


But when it comes to things such as businesses issues , the application of the commerce clause , healthcare and on federalism Gorsuch is much more likely to vote on the conservative side on those issues than Kavanaugh

Fair enough. Interesting take.

Gorsuch has also been libertarian for example in Ramos or Native American law cases.

You can't really be "libertarian" on this issue. Gorsuch on Native American cases merely looks at the treaty or at least the original meaning of the treaty to the tribe(due to language differences) and forces the state or federal governments to adhere to the original treaty. This is usually in benefit to the tribe due to the fact the Federal/State governments have broken these treaties multiple times. Overall its just Gorsuch continuing his strict textualist ideology. This is generally a good thing even if it leads to decisions you may disagree with judicially/politically as it does show Gorsuch is an objective judge of the law in many areas which is how we should want all judges to be . It doesn't mean you have to agree with Gorsuch's interpretation of law but rather one should at the very least appreciate the contribution he makes to the court.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's hard to parse Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch's judicial philosophy is more conservative, but he's more of a strict textual man while Kav has more GOP activist leanings. I'd say Barrett would be a little to the left of Alito/Thomas on the merits, but barely.

[brucejoel99]

Switch Alito & ACB's ranks with each other & I think it'd be accurate.

[Sestak]

Gorsuch being broadly ideologically "to the right" of Kavanaugh is mostly accurate tbf. On the "typical" case you will find him agreeing with Thomas a lot more than with Roberts or Kavanaugh. The difference is that he (not unlike late-tenure Scalia, though with some obvious differences) has certain issues/scenarios on which he will diverge sharply from traditional alignment. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, so far seems to be very consistently just a couple ticks to the right of Roberts.

I agree with switching Alito and Barrett until at least we have a clearer perspective of what her jurisprudence on SC looks like.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is hard to say.  I believe she is truly a Strict Constructionist and a non-activist Judge.  I do not believe she will vote to nullify much legislation, even liberal legislation, although she will have a conservative record.

One of the most ridiculous statements are the statements as to how appointing Barrett is "a blow to our democracy".  NOT appointing Barrett and allowing Biden to appoint an activist Justice to nullify all sorts of conservative legislation and legislate by Judicial Fiat is the real threat to "democracy". 

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard.  Whether these things are good or bad, they are not the law of the land due to "democracy".  To be fair, the same is true about the integration of public schools, and I certainly agree that the integration of public schools and public accommodations wound NOT have come about without the intervention of an activist Court.  But this isn't about "democracy".  Amy Coney Barrett is more about "democracy" than RBG, who was far more about Judicial Activism. 

[ibagli]

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard.

what

[Badger]

Most Left Wing

Sotomeyer



Breyer
Kagan




Roberts








Gorsuch



Kavanaugh

























Alito
Barrett
Thomas

Most Right Wing

Edited to provide context in terms of degree

[Bootes Void]

My guess is that Gorsuch is more conservative but Kavanaugh might be more partisan to say. ACB is left of alito

[Nyvin]

Most Left Wing <Sotomeyer.....Breyer..Kagan....................*Midpoint*...Roberts..Kavanaugh
...........Gorsuch........Barret/Alito/Thomas> Most Right Wing

[Kingpoleon]

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard. 

Frankly, the Supreme Court has decided that it can rule on marriage since it legalized interracial marriage in the worst form of judicial activism ever - not one in ten Americans supported it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is hard to say.  I believe she is truly a Strict Constructionist and a non-activist Judge.  I do not believe she will vote to nullify much legislation, even liberal legislation, although she will have a conservative record.

One of the most ridiculous statements are the statements as to how appointing Barrett is "a blow to our democracy".  NOT appointing Barrett and allowing Biden to appoint an activist Justice to nullify all sorts of conservative legislation and legislate by Judicial Fiat is the real threat to "democracy". 

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard.  Whether these things are good or bad, they are not the law of the land due to "democracy".  To be fair, the same is true about the integration of public schools, and I certainly agree that the integration of public schools and public accommodations wound NOT have come about without the intervention of an activist Court.  But this isn't about "democracy".  Amy Coney Barrett is more about "democracy" than RBG, who was far more about Judicial Activism. 

On campaign finance it was the conservative wing that struck down McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws

On segregation I disagree , the plain reading of the constitution would show that segregation violates the 14th amendment so i don’t think you needed an activist court to come to that decision

[Kingpoleon]

On campaign finance it was the conservative wing that struck down McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws

On segregation I disagree , the plain reading of the constitution would show that segregation violates the 14th amendment so i don’t think you needed an activist court to come to that decision

The original intent of the fourteenth amendment’s authors was not to ban segregation. Your statement rather fails originalism.

[Badger]

It is hard to say.  I believe she is truly a Strict Constructionist and a non-activist Judge.  I do not believe she will vote to nullify much legislation, even liberal legislation, although she will have a conservative record.

One of the most ridiculous statements are the statements as to how appointing Barrett is "a blow to our democracy".  NOT appointing Barrett and allowing Biden to appoint an activist Justice to nullify all sorts of conservative legislation and legislate by Judicial Fiat is the real threat to "democracy". 

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard.  Whether these things are good or bad, they are not the law of the land due to "democracy".  To be fair, the same is true about the integration of public schools, and I certainly agree that the integration of public schools and public accommodations wound NOT have come about without the intervention of an activist Court.  But this isn't about "democracy".  Amy Coney Barrett is more about "democracy" than RBG, who was far more about Judicial Activism. 

On campaign finance it was the conservative wing that struck down McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws

On segregation I disagree , the plain reading of the constitution would show that segregation violates the 14th amendment so i don’t think you needed an activist court to come to that decision

All the segregation is set the time literally use the word activist federal courts - - as well as liberals and leftist media - - 2 attack desegregation rulings. And yes, that included conservative registered Democrats like then Governor George Wallace

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is hard to say.  I believe she is truly a Strict Constructionist and a non-activist Judge.  I do not believe she will vote to nullify much legislation, even liberal legislation, although she will have a conservative record.

One of the most ridiculous statements are the statements as to how appointing Barrett is "a blow to our democracy".  NOT appointing Barrett and allowing Biden to appoint an activist Justice to nullify all sorts of conservative legislation and legislate by Judicial Fiat is the real threat to "democracy". 

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard.  Whether these things are good or bad, they are not the law of the land due to "democracy".  To be fair, the same is true about the integration of public schools, and I certainly agree that the integration of public schools and public accommodations wound NOT have come about without the intervention of an activist Court.  But this isn't about "democracy".  Amy Coney Barrett is more about "democracy" than RBG, who was far more about Judicial Activism. 

On campaign finance it was the conservative wing that struck down McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws

On segregation I disagree , the plain reading of the constitution would show that segregation violates the 14th amendment so i don’t think you needed an activist court to come to that decision

All the segregation is set the time literally use the word activist federal courts - - as well as liberals and leftist media - - 2 attack desegregation rulings. And yes, that included conservative registered Democrats like then Governor George Wallace

What they said and what is different , the strict constructionist positon is to be anti segregation cause it clearly violated equal rights and equal protection clause

[KaiserDave]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

[lfromnj]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

Yup the best example is Bostock. By using Originalism that Thomas used in that case, the original makers of this law had no desire to protect gay or transgenders as a protected class. However by textualism there was a strong case to protect these groups due to the word sex.

[KaiserDave]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

Yup the  best example is Bostock. By using Originalism that Thomas used in that case, the original makers of this law had no desire to protect gay or transgenders as a protected class. However by textualism there was a strong case to protect these groups due to the word sex.

Precisely.

Gorsuch is an originalist on the constitution and a textualist on statutes.

That textualism is evident in his Bostock ruling (which like it or not, had a sound textualist basis), and his rulings on Native law.

[Figueira]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

Yup the  best example is Bostock. By using Originalism that Thomas used in that case, the original makers of this law had no desire to protect gay or transgenders as a protected class. However by textualism there was a strong case to protect these groups due to the word sex.

Gay and transgender aren't nouns, but this is an excellent point.

Is Kagan really to the right of Breyer?