If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
One or two "surprises" in 12 years on the Court does not make Roberts a swing vote. Kennedy has "strayed" on enough important and controversial matters to legitimately be labeled a "swing" justice on the current Court. If Kennedy resigns is replaced with a Justice who will reliably vote along with Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts in the vast majority of cases, we will have a conservative Court with no real "swing vote", unless Kennedy's vacuum somehow motivates Roberts to shift dramatically from where he's been.
It is the nature of a committee to always have a swing vote. Assuming that vote is the Chief Justice, what sort of cases will become tipping point?
J
Ad Astra per Aspera
Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy
GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler
Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues
I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude
It is the nature of a committee to always have a swing vote. Assuming that vote is the Chief Justice, what sort of cases will become tipping point?
J
Eh, not sure I agree with you. Roberts isn't really moderate in any way. The way in which he's somewhat distinguished himself from Scalia, Thomas and Alito in his years as Chief Justice is that he does like to build consensus where he thinks he can. If the replacement of Kennedy leaves Roberts as the "middle" judge in the conservative-to-liberal spectrum on the 9-judge Court, there will be few if any clear wins for the Court's liberals. The best hope is that Roberts will seek out opportunities for 9-0, 8-1, 7-2 and 6-3 opinions by moderating the holding or deciding the case narrowly enough to allow some of the liberals to join it. That may occasionally dissatisfy Thomas, Alito or Gorsuch enough that they feel compelled to issue a concurring opinion saying they wish the ruling had gone further. But make no mistake, a Court with John Roberts as the "middle" justice would be a deeply conservative Court.
Eh, not sure I agree with you. Roberts isn't really moderate in any way. The way in which he's somewhat distinguished himself from Scalia, Thomas and Alito in his years as Chief Justice is that he does like to build consensus where he thinks he can. If the replacement of Kennedy leaves Roberts as the "middle" judge in the conservative-to-liberal spectrum on the 9-judge Court, there will be few if any clear wins for the Court's liberals. The best hope is that Roberts will seek out opportunities for 9-0, 8-1, 7-2 and 6-3 opinions by moderating the holding or deciding the case narrowly enough to allow some of the liberals to join it. That may occasionally dissatisfy Thomas, Alito or Gorsuch enough that they feel compelled to issue a concurring opinion saying they wish the ruling had gone further. But make no mistake, a Court with John Roberts as the "middle" justice would be a deeply conservative Court.
I did not say he was a moderate. I said he was the middle, unless that turns out to be Gorsuch. Gorsuch seems very much the literalist, even if he does not agree with the written law. If Roberts is the swing vote, what sort of case will he swing?
J
Ad Astra per Aspera
Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy
GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler
Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues
I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude
I did not say he was a moderate. I said he was the middle, unless that turns out to be Gorsuch. Gorsuch seems very much the literalist, even if he does not agree with the written law. If Roberts is the swing vote, what sort of case will he swing?
J
You're either deliberately or inadvertently misreading me. I see almost no circumstance where he provides the liberal four with the fifth vote they need on a controversial case, leaving four conservatives in the minority. Even if he's in the middle of the Court ideologically, I don't think he'll swing cases to a liberal majority. At best, he'll soften the blow of some decisions by ruling narrowly in order to draw in the liberals every once in a while.
A relevant antecedent is the Warren Court after Tom Clark was replaced by Thurgood Marshall in 1967. The liberals (Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas, Marshall) were in the majority of pretty much every case decided, even as Black drifted slightly rightward to occasionally dissent with Harlan, White and Stewart. The only drama back then was whether the liberals would decide cases broadly 5-4 or even 6-3, or if they would decide more narrowly or moderately because they wanted to secure a 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0 decision.
You're either deliberately or inadvertently misreading me. I see almost no circumstance where he provides the liberal four with the fifth vote they need on a controversial case, leaving four conservatives in the minority. Even if he's in the middle of the Court ideologically, I don't think he'll swing cases to a liberal majority. At best, he'll soften the blow of some decisions by ruling narrowly in order to draw in the liberals every once in a while.
You are saying there is no common ground between Roberts and Stevens/Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor. That is counter-intuitive, but OK. I wonder how long Stevens and/or Breyer will put up with a long string of 5-4 losses.
Huge Union case today. I was a Union Steward for over 15 years and this outcome was feared the whole time. The implications are much more severe than generally understood, particularly for the Democratic Party.
J
Ad Astra per Aspera
Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy
GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler
Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues
I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude
A relevant antecedent is the Warren Court after Tom Clark was replaced by Thurgood Marshall in 1967. The liberals (Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas, Marshall) were in the majority of pretty much every case decided, even as Black drifted slightly rightward to occasionally dissent with Harlan, White and Stewart. The only drama back then was whether the liberals would decide cases broadly 5-4 or even 6-3, or if they would decide more narrowly or moderately because they wanted to secure a 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0 decision.
Per CNN: Kennedy to Retire!
Do Dems now block any Trump appointment, in hopes of delaying it until they can see how 2018 elections and the Big Blue Wave turn out?
I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.
Do Dems now block any Trump appointment, in hopes of delaying it until they can see how 2018 elections and the Big Blue Wave turn out?
After Merrick Garland, why wouldn't they?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
His last small grace note for moderates/liberals was waiting for the announcement of this week's cases to prove to us that the Court already sucks balls as currently constituted, so we shouldn't be as distraught about his retirement as we otherwise might have been.
Is it too much to hope that Trump will nominate his big sister out of family loyalty? (She's a moderate federal district court judge in inactive retired status, age 81.)
Is it too much to hope that Trump will nominate his big sister out of family loyalty? (She's a moderate federal district court judge in inactive retired status, age 81.)
I suspect, what was good for the goose, gets played again, this time, by the Dems. This could bring out the votes on both sides in the fall!
By the way, I'm betting Diane Sykes of Wisconsin. Charlie's ex. But she'll be smart if she think she'll get Garland'd, she'll turn down offer.
That would be truly unexpected. The Democrats could have forced a vote on Garland, but they thought they didn't need to do it. Not so this time, even though few people think the Senate will change parties. Expect a new Justice before the election.
Sykes would be by the playbook. Trump always said he would be willing to nominate outside the Ivy League. Two reservations, age and current position.
You are saying there is no common ground between Roberts and Stevens/Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor. That is counter-intuitive, but OK. I wonder how long Stevens and/or Breyer will put up with a long string of 5-4 losses.
Well since Stevens retired back in 2010, he certainly won't put up with it long, lol.
I think Ginsburg and Breyer will at least try to hold out for 2020. Maybe they announce their impending retirements in Summer 2020 to drive up turnout.
Is it too much to hope that Trump will nominate his big sister out of family loyalty? (She's a moderate federal district court judge in inactive retired status, age 81.)
she was in the 2-1 Third Circuit majority denying NJ sports betting that was overturned by SCOTUS last month. he'll want someone with better judgment
finished 10th in this 37th yr in 11-team-only NL 5x5
own picks 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 in April 2022 1st-rd farmhand draft
won in 2017 15 07 05 04 02 93 90 84
SP SGray 16, TWalker 10, AWood 10, Price 3, KH Kim 2, Corbin 10
RP Bednar 10, Bender 10, Graterol 2
C Stallings 2, Casali 1
1B Votto 10, 3B ERios 2, 1B Zimmerman 2, 2S Chisholm 5, 2B Hoerner 5, 2B Solano 2, 2B LGarcia 10, SS Gregorius 17
OF Cain 14, Bader 1, Daza 1
Comment