- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
USSC judges supposedly base their decisions only on the LAW??
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:50 am
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:50 am
Why do they all vote down party lines everytime?
This post was edited on 5/16/25 at 6:51 am
11
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:53 am to i am dan
Well the democrat appointees do. The Republican appointees show how "open-minded" they are by abandoning their supposed principles.
How come it is only Republican appointed ones who EVER are in doubt about how they may vote on contentious cases?
When was the last time a Democrat appointed one cast a deciding vote in a 5-4 case going against the Democrat position?
How come it is only Republican appointed ones who EVER are in doubt about how they may vote on contentious cases?
When was the last time a Democrat appointed one cast a deciding vote in a 5-4 case going against the Democrat position?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:54 am to i am dan
quote:
the LAW?
Is defined and administered by humans.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:57 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Well the democrat appointees do. The Republican appointees show how "open-minded" they are by abandoning their supposed principles. How come it is only Republican appointed ones who EVER are in doubt about how they may vote on contentious cases? When was the last time a Democrat appointed one cast a deciding vote in a 5-4 case going against the Democrat position?
To a reasonable and logical person, one would conclude that the Justices that vote as a bloc are just political hacks. Weve gaslit ourselves into accepting this as normal and ok(what can we do about it anyway?)
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:59 am to i am dan
There is no law for anchor babies getting automatic citizenship but they will give them that "right".
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:59 am to scottydoesntknow
quote:
To a reasonable and logical person, one would conclude that the Justices that vote as a bloc are just political hacks.
The problem is that this kind of assumption is based upon not really being informed about how the justices vote on the vast majority of cases that come before the Court.
EDIT: here’s a court tracking article from May of 2024 reporting that in its term last year, 80% of the Court’s rulings were unanimous decisions. Capital News Service. That wasn’t difficult to find.
This post was edited on 5/16/25 at 7:04 am
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:00 am to i am dan
They don't. That's only the "marquee" cases where the ideological split is exploited. You'll find Kagan siding with the conservatives a lot....not a majority of the time but she is pretty fair. You'll find Gorsuch siding against Thomas and Alito on certain key cases involving individuals and the Government or corporations. Roberts will surprise you as well. Right now it's ACB....a while back it was Kavanaugh
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:09 am to TBoy
And what you'll find is that those 80% of the cases where they vote unanimously probably have a greater effect on the daily lives of most Americans than the marqee cases.For better or worse.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:13 am to TBoy
quote:
EDIT: here’s a court tracking article from May of 2024 reporting that in its term last year, 80% of the Court’s rulings were unanimous decisions.
To me the truly baffling cases and not for political reasons are when those Supreme Court unanimous decisions are overturning lower courts.
To me that just seems like intuitively that shouldn't even be possible
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:15 am to i am dan
quote:
USSC judges supposedly base their decisions only on the LAW??
They all use the same set of facts, have access to the same case law, and the same language of the US Constitution. Yet 5-4 decisions happen because a block of judges will find a way to agree on things never before thought possible under the law.
For example: abortion was actually a right to privacy and was originally intended as a protected right under the due process clause.
Another (Wickard v Filburn) is that the Commerce Clause, which existed to regulate trade between states, also enabled government to regulate crops grown for personal use.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:16 am to TBoy
quote:
not really being informed
quote:
TBoy
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:18 am to KiwiHead
quote:
And what you'll find is that those 80% of the cases where they vote unanimously probably have a greater effect on the daily lives of most Americans than the marqee cases.For better or worse.
Well, you’re just making this up.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:30 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
To me the truly baffling cases and not for political reasons are when those Supreme Court unanimous decisions are overturning lower courts.
Judges are human. Sometimes they make mistakes and sometimes they leave out a critical issue. Also, there are often legitimate grounds for different interpretations of fact or law. The higher courts make mistakes too. That’s an inherent feature of any human enterprise.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:33 am to TBoy
quote:
EDIT: here’s a court tracking article from May of 2024 reporting that in its term last year, 80% of the Court’s rulings were unanimous decisions. Capital News Service. That wasn’t difficult to find.
Let's hear what those unanimous decision cases were.
Because I know there won't any nationally controversial cases such as this listed.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:34 am to i am dan
quote:Sotomayor's rambling proves this is the case, even when Roberts tried to get her to STFU and let counsel for the gov't even answer her question.
Why do they all vote down party lines everytime?
It was more like the playacting we see in congressional hearings that a Justice of the Supreme Court objectively probing a legal position.
Can always reference her statement, not question, that 100,000 children were in hospitals due to Covid (it was more like 4700 spread over years).
This post was edited on 5/16/25 at 7:37 am
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:49 am to TBoy
Ironic coming from one of the least informed posters on the board who consistently develops some of the worst political takes possible on virtually any issue
Posted on 5/16/25 at 9:01 am to i am dan
quote:
Let's hear what those unanimous decision cases were.
Because I know there won't any nationally controversial cases such as this listed.
Well, you would be wrong because you are still uninformed.
The ruling about access to abortion pills in 2024 was unanimous. As was the case about religious accommodation in the workplace. And we should not forget that the Supreme Court was unanimous in LINK ]Noem v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 9:24 am to i am dan
This is all ONE BIG SWAMP. It has to be drained, sprayed with weedkiller, filled in with fresh dirt on top of it, and then completely compressed down with mud packers. We need ALL new people in govt including REPS.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 9:46 am to TBoy
quote:
Well, you would be wrong because you are still uninformed.
The ruling about access to abortion pills in 2024 was unanimous. As was the case about religious accommodation in the workplace. And we should not forget that the Supreme Court was unanimous in Noem v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
9-0 cases are meaningless vis a vis partisanship.
Now tell us all the 5-4 cases where any leftist justice cast the deciding vote on an issue where the "conservative" position won. I can list a bunch of cases where Roberts did just that in the opposite direction.
You are either stupid or you are doing that leftist thing where you fake like you do not know how to make a legit argument.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 10:19 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Now tell us all the 5-4 cases where any leftist justice cast the deciding vote on an issue where the "conservative" position won. I can list a bunch of cases where Roberts did just that in the opposite direction.
Just last week there was a case where Sotamayor joined Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch in the majority.
That left Thomas and Alito dissenting, along with Kagan and Jackson. So, obviously, it eas unclear what the liberal and conservative positions were. Still, it was Sotamayor and 4 conservative Justices.
Currently, I'm not sure how a liberal Justice can cast the "deciding vote" in any opinion, since at least 2 conservative Justices would have to dissent for the vote to be 5-4. Seems unlikely that 2 conservative Justices would dissent from a clearly conservative position.
Historically, it was not uncommon for liberal Justices to cross ideological lines in close decisions. Ginsburg did so in several cases.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News