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.
Arguing partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon knots with ease whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
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.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
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.
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.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
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.
I like that idea!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
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.
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.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
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.
I think that's a good point, Sub. There was a fairly long stretch where there the judicial philosophy of the Justices was fairly uniform. I also prefer having Justicies of diverse judicial philosophy -- after all, how can we evaluate ideas if they are never raised?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
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.
I think there is always a tendency to offer "fixes" to the system when it produces results that the proponent of change disagrees with. Structurally, I think the Supreme Court is a conservative institution, in that it lags public opinion. That, in my opinion, is a good thing. The House can flip from one political extreme to another every two years. The executive branch every four, and the Senate every six. The Supreme Court changes more slowly, with doctrines like stare decisis also acting to dampen the rate of change.
So, I'm also inclined not to rush in to change the Constitution in response to current events. The one event that gives me pause is McConnell's theft of a seat that should have been fulfilled by Obama. That kind of manipulation of the system is damaging, and may warrant changes to prevent similar abuses in the future.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.
- Doc
Yeah, I have really mixed feelings on that. On the one hand, I see the appeal of giving them a taste of their own medicine. On the other hand, an eye for an eye and we're all blind. Every overreach by either side has been justified by some prior overreach. if we just tear down norm after norm after norm, where are we going to end up?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951