DiscussMormonism.com

If we consider the number of cases decided by single vote majorities to be a fair proxy for a Court’s polarization, it becomes easy to see that our current Court is by and large the most partisan in years. In the period between 1801 and 1940, less than 2 percent of all the Supreme Court’s decisions were decided by a 5–4 vote. By contrast, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have seen just over 20 percent of their cases be decided by this small margin. This shift provides a clear indication that polarization has indeed spread to the judiciary. Modern justices seem to often vote in ideological alignment with the party of the President that appointed them. This phenomenon is relatively new. In the past, the party of the appointing President did not predict a justice’s votes. Twentieth century justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Harry Blackmun all leaned liberal despite being appointed by Republican Presidents. Now, these types of justices have become extinct. In the 2014–2015 term, virtually every 5–4 decision the Court gave out was split perfectly along party lines. This, combined with the increase in 5–4 decisions, is an indicator of just how partisan the Supreme Court has become.

A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.

DoubtingThomas wrote:Res Ipsa and honorentheos want me to believe that our Supreme Court Justices are brilliant, but so far I haven't been impressed. It is sad to be living in the 21st century because science is slowly progressing and Citizens United is eating us alive.

If we consider the number of cases decided by single vote majorities to be a fair proxy for a Court’s polarization, it becomes easy to see that our current Court is by and large the most partisan in years. In the period between 1801 and 1940, less than 2 percent of all the Supreme Court’s decisions were decided by a 5–4 vote. By contrast, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have seen just over 20 percent of their cases be decided by this small margin. This shift provides a clear indication that polarization has indeed spread to the judiciary. Modern justices seem to often vote in ideological alignment with the party of the President that appointed them. This phenomenon is relatively new. In the past, the party of the appointing President did not predict a justice’s votes. Twentieth century justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Harry Blackmun all leaned liberal despite being appointed by Republican Presidents. Now, these types of justices have become extinct. In the 2014–2015 term, virtually every 5–4 decision the Court gave out was split perfectly along party lines. This, combined with the increase in 5–4 decisions, is an indicator of just how partisan the Supreme Court has become.

https://stanfordpolitics.org/2016/01/07 ... eme-court/

MeDotOrg wrote:Who else does one go to for advice on the Supreme Court but Rick Perry?

Seriously, Rick Perry had an interesting idea. From his old campaign website:

A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.

Personally I think it's a good idea. I originally read about it at the New Yorker.

MeDotOrg wrote:Who else does one go to for advice on the Supreme Court but Rick Perry?

Seriously, Rick Perry had an interesting idea. From his old campaign website:

A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.

Personally I think it's a good idea. I originally read about it at the New Yorker.

subgenius wrote:the point here seems to be completely misinterpreted.

From 1801 to 1940 clearly the court was just partisan...single minded as it were....no diversity of opinion, etc.
Now with 5-4 decisions on the rise we see a court that is more bi-partisan....diverse in opinion...independently minded, etc..

me, i prefer the latter - the melting pot only works when it is hot....and i prefer that over homogenization....the Stepford Wives are always unanimous.

honorentheos wrote:This is where my streaks of conservatism come in, where the tradition of the court has been precisely to be distant from the moods of the people. Our current court culture is largely an influence of hyper-partisanship becoming the norm first in the house and now the senate. With the McConnell move to block Obama from making an appointment for over a year before an election, we've seen this realized explicitly in the courts. But I don't think the solution is to abandon the court to majority rule anymore than the solution to ill-fitting shoes that are leading to back problems is to not walk as much.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc