Posted on 05/23/2008 5:32:01 AM PDT by libstripper
WASHINGTON — Where have all the 5-to-4 decisions gone?
And whatever happened to the “Kennedy Court”?
A year ago at this time, the Supreme Court had decided 13 cases by votes of 5 to 4, out of 41 total decisions. That proved to be an accurate snapshot of a highly polarized term. By the time the court wrapped up its work five weeks later, a third of the cases — the highest proportion in years — had been decided by margins of a single vote.
But so far this term, with 35 cases decided with full opinions, there has been only a single 5-to-4 decision. It came in a low-visibility statutory case, not in a hot-button constitutional one. And the justices did not break along the ideological divisions that shaped the last term. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority in all 24 of last term’s 5-to-4 decisions, voted in dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Getting rid of Sandra was a HUGE help.
Now if we can only get rid of Darth Vader Ginsburg...
Enjoy it while you can. No matter who the next President is, I expect appointments to the left of Roberts and Alito. Obambi can't wait and McCain will have no choice.
“Getting rid of Sandra was a HUGE help.”
Appointing Sandra O’Connor was one of Ronald Reagan’s worst blunders. The nation suffered because of his attempt to curry favor with the msm with that PC nomination. It was a failure all the way around.
I’m pretty sure the second amendment decision will be 5-4 one way or the other and no matter which way it goes will be hugely polarizing.
Time is on our side if we can keep the Democrats out of the white house a few more years. Not sure we can get a real conservative through without picking up several seats in the Senate, but a lose of the white house along with a Democrat Senate will mean they will be able to replace their current crop of older than dirt liberals with a youthful group. That is one thing we can't let happen.
Linda Greenhouse has been covering the court and Washington for decades, yet she asks us a question about the court.
Hey media dopes, stop asking us questions and get us some real answers.
I think the good guys will win with at least 6 votes, possibly 7. The liberals did a poor job on that case and they did not seem to win much support from the court.
If McCain sticks to his promise and the Senate doesn’t confirm..can the court go ahead short one Justice?
There is no way you can say that abortion IS NOT the taking of a life.
I don’t believe the court is actually limited by number.
That would be wonderful. An overwhelming affirmation of the second would be most welcome unless they decide to water down the language.
There is a philosophy of the study of the written word that says that text cannot mean anything that the authors could not have intended it to mean. Leftists only use this argument when talking about the 2nd amendment (muskets but not AR-15s), but are quickly put in their place when confronted with “internet journalism” in relation to the 1st.
However, most leftists have been, for decades, trained in the concept of “deconstructionism”, in which the written word has NO meaning except for that which the READER imputes on it. I would not doubt that most leftist judges hold this philosophy as a core belief.
Then there is this little gem from the 1963 communist goals entered into the Congressional record:
29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
But fear not, McLame would relent and nominate Chucky-Schmucky's preferred candidate.
We should get an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, but they will almost certainly leave the door open for numerous restrictions..
An interesting strategy. Right now, I’m not sure McCain would have the stones. However, after getting roasted this fall by his pals in the media and his “good friends” on the other side of the aisle he might finally get over his Stockholm syndrome. If that were the case, I’d love to see what you describe.
YES
but then you lose a tiebreaker.
My expectation is that McCain will appoint good justices. Whether they get confimed will depend on whether the Democrats in the “Gang of 14” will stand by their erstwhile leader to make sure they get a vote. I think there is actually a good chance that they will. If they do, then McCain’s actions in blocking the nuclear option and oganizing the gang will be vindicated.
If they don’t work with McCain, and choose to help Harry Reid block a vote on McCains picks, two things could happen. Either McCain withdraws the conservative’s nomination, and appoints “moderates” acceptable to Reid, or McCain holds tough on demanding a vote, and the seats go unfilled. Assuming they are replacing liberal justices, that’s fine. You would have a court with a 5/3 balance in favor of the conservatives. You may get an occasional 4/4 tie. If 2 justices retire it could be 5/2 or 4/3 on most decisions.
Btw, one reason I think you are seeing fewer split decisions is that having 4 justices making strong constitutionalist arguments makes it much harder for the others to ignore and counter them than when it was mostly just Scalia and Thomas arguing alone.
If McCain sticks to his promise and the Senate doesn’t confirm..can the court go ahead short one Justice?
Yes.
>> The Constitution ... said ALL are entitled to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Constitution says nothing about “life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.
That’s the Declaration of Independence.
(But I agree with you that there is certainly no constitutional support for abortion.)
A visual graph in terms of where the Justices are on the liberal (left) to conservative (right) scale.
1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
2. John Paul Stevens
3. David Souter
4. Stephen Breyer
5. Anthony Kennedy
6. John Roberts
7. Samuel Alito
8. Clarence Thomas
9. Antonin Scalia
1--2----3--4----5----6----7----8-9
Since Ginsberg and Stevens are the ones most likely to have to be replaced.
So would you rather have a couple of Justices near #5 or a couple of Justices back in the #1 and #2 position?
Absolutely. Seems to me she had some sway with Kennedy, another pretty bad Reagan appointee.
My vote for McCain, if it happens, will probably be based largely upon the Supreme Court.
Republican presidents do not GUARANTEE a conservative justice (see: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy)...but they DO provide an opportunity for one (see: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito).
Greenhouse gasses
You’re preaching to the choir. I’m voting for McCain, the best Democrat running this year.
A visual graph in terms of where the Justices are on the liberal (left) to conservative (right) scale.
1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
2. John Paul Stevens
3. David Souter
4. Stephen Breyer
5. Anthony Kennedy
6. John Roberts
7. Samuel Alito
8. Clarence Thomas
9. Antonin Scalia
1--2----3--4----5----6----7----8-9
Since Ginsberg and Stevens are the ones most likely to have to be replaced.
So would you rather have a couple of Justices near #5 or a couple of Justices back in the #1 and #2 position?
Amendment V: (1791) “Nor be denied Life, Liberty or property without due process of Law”
Yes, but the Supreme's who will retire are on the left anyway. So the idealogical dynamics should not change much.
but they will almost certainly leave the door open for numerous restrictions..
I’m certain you’re correct but affirming an individual’s right will give pro gun lawyers a powerful weapon to combat restrictions. It would be good to see the gun banners on defense for the next 50 years.
ML/NJ
Roberts is the second best thing George Bush has done for this country.
It will be nearly unanimous in our favor. (Individual right)
The definition of “arms” and “infringement” however, will be where we get screwed.
You mean Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, I mean is she so shrill and has a deep well of despise for the President, that she is hanging on till he leaves? She is the one that nods off during hearings? Geez, I htought botox-face from the House was the only bruja there./Just Asking - seoul62........
That would require a wooden stake.
I predict 9-0 in Heller, with a split on the underlying issue of whether it is permissible to ban an entire class of arms.
When is the Heller ruling going to be announced?/Just Asking - seoul62.......
Bingo. Presumably there are few 5-4 decisions precisely because the judges are adhering to what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say.
June.
Banning a category is central to the case, not tangential. The “bear” and “disabled” issues are the tangental parts (restrictions thereon are defacto category bans); if the category can be banned, then transporting & enabling such items is moot.
What will make the result less than 9-0 is the consequence of disallowing categorical bans will in turn disallow the categorical ban of machineguns, which is a third-rail can’t-go-there for some of the judges. Basically, they have to rule against categorical bans, but some can’t stomach doing so because real new M16s & AK47s & UZIs will be legalized (maybe not in this case immediately, but will make a followup case a slam-dunk).
But there is a difference. If McCain gives us two Sandra Day O'Connors when Ginsburg and Stevens retire, we are MILES ahead of the game.
If Obama appoints two 50 year old leftists, we are back to the square one.
“When is the Heller ruling going to be announced?”
No one really knows exactly when. The arguments were on March 18. The average SC opinion comes out around 3 months after arguments; but more complex cases can take longer. General consensus is that the SC will release the opinion in June, before they break for the Summer; however, they could wait until the Fall. It’s the Supreme Court—they can do what they want.
I think President Eisenhower did this three times. Once they were seated, that forced the Senate to consider them, and all were ultimately voted in for the lifetime appointment.
Times are different now but if I were President, and the Harry Reids and Dick Durbins of the Senate were not considering my candidates, I would appoint a new conservative jurist every two years in succession.
“McCain will have no choice”
Why not? Bush nominated two right of center people at a time when he was hugely unpopular, why would McCain have no choice to do the same? The American public rejected the Democrats games with the nominations. So long as McCain selected highly qualified people (Luttig comes to mind, some of the women on the 5th Circuit come to mind), who can defend themselves against attacks by the special interest groups (abortionists) speaking in the ears of the senators (i.e. Durbin literally being given questions from NOW, etc. during breaks), I don’t see why McCain can’t select good conservative judges who follow the law rather than change it to fit their ideological views.
Of the reasons cited in the artcile (the court being swayed by the political climate, responding to congressional pressure stemming from the employment discrimination case), the one that seems most plausible is that the cases are being decided narrowly. That’s something I’ve heard Scalia advocate for.
This is what Roberts said he would do.
Holy crap the author of this piece is a liberal moron. To read it is to see just how clueless the liberal mind is. They never, ever consider that decisions could be made on substance and merit. There’s always got to be a political angle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.