SCOTUS like everything else that matters, was gamed to death by partisans. On both sides. In the end, they even stopped pretending that appointing a Justice was anything other than yet another partisan exercise.
Partisans from the right, yes. Can you today imagine a Republican president nominating a Warren Burger or David Souter to the Court? Let alone a Republican Congress confirming them?
The Republicans also function quite effectively through The Federalist Society, a sort of legal equivalent to a right-wing National Guard, or on a very energetic day the combined force of both the 4th Division and 101st Airborne. The democrats also lack a committed partisan-activist-troglodyte like Lenny Leo, coyly self-formulated as one-part Uriah Heep, one-part Micawber, ingeniously distilling the far-right's retrograde legal philosophies and energies through the deep pocketbooks of the usual familial suspects: the Kochs, the Scaifes, the Mercers, along with the usual Googles and Chevrons of the world.
The result? Court Justices whose opinions differ little from the hasty edicts of ward bosses, and who, during their confirmation hearings, thought very little of lying and dissembling when quizzed by Senators on previous Court precedents and their own legal philosophies: to wit, Justices Sammy "burn'em at the stakes" Alito, Brett "party animal" Kavanaugh, Neil "really, I'm not an idiot!" Gorsuch, Amy "I have many a handmaid's tale to tell" Coney-Barrett, and Court grand-pappy Clarence "where's my yacht?" Thomas.
You know it's a good day at "1776 I Street" when the chimneys send forth the white smoke (potassium chlorate, lactose and chloroform resin), gloriously signaling that a new Justice from the right has just been interred on the Court. Puffs of smoke formed from potassium perchlorate, anthracene and sulfur, on the other hand, signal a brief interval of mourning is in order, followed by a good deal of caviling over a new era of dangerous judicial "activism," "legal leftist machinations," etc. etc. etc. etc. The Federalists become quite ornery when the Black Smoke gets in their eyes.
You've never taken the time to examine SCOTUSBlog, have you?
You should check it out, instead of simply relying on uninformed observations.
You might be surprised. You can find all manner of stats there. You can see the number of cases decided with majorities, how minorities ruled, how the cases break down in terms of number of votes per case.
You can see percentages of agreement votes (not what you'd expect, if you're a rabid partisan). You can look at cases by term.
You can see the split for every adjudicated case in the stat pack archives. These stats indicate that SCOTUS is not as divided on their rulings as the public is led to believe.
Of course, it's easier just to accept what you hear, because finding out for yourself takes too much work. There are quite a large number of cases that where the majority decision came from a combination of what we label "conservative" or "liberal" justices.
It's tedious work examining the entire blog, but it's also very eye opening.
Wouldn't that then mean that those involved in the gun control debate, on both sides, are also very, very flawed human beings?
And wouldn't that then extend to their flawed rulings?
So then what's the point of even trying to litigate it?
My comments are about treating them, or anyone, as infallible or the last word on this subject or any other.
That I can agree with to some extent. But everything we do to legislate stems from an attempt at understanding what the framers meant.
Supreme Court justices have proven themselves to be poor haruspices. One of the chief reasons we're floundering as a nation.
SCOTUS like everything else that matters, was gamed to death by partisans. On both sides. In the end, they even stopped pretending that appointing a Justice was anything other than yet another partisan exercise.
Partisans from the right, yes. Can you today imagine a Republican president nominating a Warren Burger or David Souter to the Court? Let alone a Republican Congress confirming them?
The Republicans also function quite effectively through The Federalist Society, a sort of legal equivalent to a right-wing National Guard, or on a very energetic day the combined force of both the 4th Division and 101st Airborne. The democrats also lack a committed partisan-activist-troglodyte like Lenny Leo, coyly self-formulated as one-part Uriah Heep, one-part Micawber, ingeniously distilling the far-right's retrograde legal philosophies and energies through the deep pocketbooks of the usual familial suspects: the Kochs, the Scaifes, the Mercers, along with the usual Googles and Chevrons of the world.
The result? Court Justices whose opinions differ little from the hasty edicts of ward bosses, and who, during their confirmation hearings, thought very little of lying and dissembling when quizzed by Senators on previous Court precedents and their own legal philosophies: to wit, Justices Sammy "burn'em at the stakes" Alito, Brett "party animal" Kavanaugh, Neil "really, I'm not an idiot!" Gorsuch, Amy "I have many a handmaid's tale to tell" Coney-Barrett, and Court grand-pappy Clarence "where's my yacht?" Thomas.
You know it's a good day at "1776 I Street" when the chimneys send forth the white smoke (potassium chlorate, lactose and chloroform resin), gloriously signaling that a new Justice from the right has just been interred on the Court. Puffs of smoke formed from potassium perchlorate, anthracene and sulfur, on the other hand, signal a brief interval of mourning is in order, followed by a good deal of caviling over a new era of dangerous judicial "activism," "legal leftist machinations," etc. etc. etc. etc. The Federalists become quite ornery when the Black Smoke gets in their eyes.
The totality of their rulings indicate the opposite.
In their rulings, at least, the court is not as divided as we are led to believe.
If you have time, pour over the contents of SCOTUSBlog. Not at all what I thought it would be based on reportage.
You've never taken the time to examine SCOTUSBlog, have you?
You should check it out, instead of simply relying on uninformed observations.
You might be surprised. You can find all manner of stats there. You can see the number of cases decided with majorities, how minorities ruled, how the cases break down in terms of number of votes per case.
You can see percentages of agreement votes (not what you'd expect, if you're a rabid partisan). You can look at cases by term.
You can see the split for every adjudicated case in the stat pack archives. These stats indicate that SCOTUS is not as divided on their rulings as the public is led to believe.
Of course, it's easier just to accept what you hear, because finding out for yourself takes too much work. There are quite a large number of cases that where the majority decision came from a combination of what we label "conservative" or "liberal" justices.
It's tedious work examining the entire blog, but it's also very eye opening.