The Supreme Court’s Newest Justices Produce Some Unexpected Results

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,758
8,859
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
As I thought all along..once a person gets confirmed for life, they are free to vote their conscience--and ignore politics, if they wish.
the court has a long history of independence, we see that again with this SCOTUS--the real question is will it last..when the ideological meat of the docket comes up later this year?


The arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October seemed to create a 6-to-3 conservative juggernaut that would transform the Supreme Court.
Instead, judging by the 39 signed decisions in argued cases so far this term, including two major rulings on Thursday, the right side of the court is badly fractured and its liberal members are having a surprisingly good run.
That picture may change, as the court has yet to issue the term’s last 15 decisions. But some trends have already come into focus.
The conventional wisdom last fall was that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s leadership, with its bias toward incrementalism and moderation, was over. With five justices to his right, including three appointed by President Donald J. Trump, the chief justice’s ability to guide the court was thought to have evaporated.
The story of the term so far, though, is a different one. Indeed, it is the court’s most conservative members who are issuing howling dissents and aggrieved concurrences to protest a majority they say is too cautious.
That majority very often includes Mr. Trump’s appointees, notably Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is now at the court’s ideological center, replacing the chief justice.
 
Many Presidents were “surprised” by their selections to the Supreme Court.

As Eisenhower once said:

“I made two mistakes and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court.”[Referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan]
 
They supported the ACA which again is a disappointment to the people who don't want it.
The odd thing..they didn't really. They ruled that the states that brought the suit had no standing..and dismissed. But they side-stepped the constitutionality of the ACA..again...for the third time. They dithered. The result is the same though.

This court appears to be a cautious one, not given to sweeping rulings. I think that's a good thing, but we'll see.
 
They supported the ACA which again is a disappointment to the people who don't want it.
The odd thing..they didn't really. They ruled that the states that brought the suit had no standing..and dismissed. But they side-stepped the constitutionality of the ACA..again...for the third time. They dithered. The result is the same though.

This court appears to be a cautious one, not given to sweeping rulings. I think that's a good thing, but we'll see.
The Constitutionality of the ACA was the first test in the first court case for the Supreme Court on the issue.
 
As I thought all along..once a person gets confirmed for life, they are free to vote their conscience--and ignore politics, if they wish.
the court has a long history of independence, we see that again with this SCOTUS--the real question is will it last..when the ideological meat of the docket comes up later this year?


The arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October seemed to create a 6-to-3 conservative juggernaut that would transform the Supreme Court.
Instead, judging by the 39 signed decisions in argued cases so far this term, including two major rulings on Thursday, the right side of the court is badly fractured and its liberal members are having a surprisingly good run.
That picture may change, as the court has yet to issue the term’s last 15 decisions. But some trends have already come into focus.
The conventional wisdom last fall was that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s leadership, with its bias toward incrementalism and moderation, was over. With five justices to his right, including three appointed by President Donald J. Trump, the chief justice’s ability to guide the court was thought to have evaporated.
The story of the term so far, though, is a different one. Indeed, it is the court’s most conservative members who are issuing howling dissents and aggrieved concurrences to protest a majority they say is too cautious.
That majority very often includes Mr. Trump’s appointees, notably Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is now at the court’s ideological center, replacing the chief justice.
All the boogie-manning about the justices was just that.

The people who have been recommending justices to presidents have been promoting constitutionalists to the Court who will interpret the Constitution and Laws under strict rules of construction REGARDLESS of the result.

That's all I ask for.
 
They supported the ACA which again is a disappointment to the people who don't want it.
The odd thing..they didn't really. They ruled that the states that brought the suit had no standing..and dismissed. But they side-stepped the constitutionality of the ACA..again...for the third time. They dithered. The result is the same though.

This court appears to be a cautious one, not given to sweeping rulings. I think that's a good thing, but we'll see.
I do too. They are not going to act in complete replacement of the legislature. That is all I have ever asked of the SCOTUS.
 
Lefties can't even bring themselves to use a simple term like "majority". It has to be "juggernaut" when it comes to conservatives. Conservative Justices can't even get a break from angry lefties when the decisions seem to go their way. Anyway, the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed Catholic foster child programs to discriminate against homosexuals showed that the Court does lean conservative when push comes to shove.
 

Forum List

Back
Top