I’ve been trying very hard to keep this newsletter as much about COVID data and news as possible, but this week has seen the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and, while I don’t have very strong opinions about Judge Barrett or the manner in which she is being confirmed, I want to take this moment in time to talk about how I came to be divorced from the popular conception of a partisan Supreme Court.
Also worth noting how principles Supreme Court decisions tend to be. Congress and the President tend to use whatever excuse is handy to reach their desired policy. But in the Supreme Court, all of the "liberal" justices will agree that the Federal government can outlaw personal use marijuana because they believe the Federal government has that power, while only conservatives dissent in favor of the pot growers. Maybe the principles favor "liberal" or "conservative" policies best overall, but looking at the results of cases misses the point unless you take the principles as seriously as the justices do.
Great Work on the Supreme Court analysis. At the moment all the justices are serious people who take the law seriously with the possible exception of Sotomayer who seems overly results oriented. Also John Roberts occasionally seems more interested in policy than law but he's definitely serious. Amy Cony Barrett seems like a fine addition given her demonstrated temperament and knowledge as demonstrated in her hearing. One of the reasons I will not vote for Biden is his turning the judicial confirmation hearings into goat rodeos like the Bork and Thomas hearings he presided over.
The graph you showed reminded me- at least in AP Government and Politics, we tended to look at the Supreme Court in conservative, liberal, and swing blocs. In the Rehnquist court, this was Sandra Day, Anthony Kennedy, and 1 other (Souter maybe?? It has been 17 years after all).
This seems at least a slightly more honest way of describing it.
I know there are multiple layers of courts (District and Appeals) that would make the visualization messy but it would be interesting if you could stack your bar charts in a way that showed whether the SCOTUS ruling was sustaining or overturning the lower court(s) ruling(s). I think it would be an fascinating to see if unanimous decisions were more often "smackdowns" of lower courts or amicable confirmations of their rulings. And if I had to guess, the split decisions likely occur mostly for cases where District and Appeals courts were in disagreement.
Or I could be horribly wrong and you would do a lot of work for nothing. :-)
Also worth noting how principles Supreme Court decisions tend to be. Congress and the President tend to use whatever excuse is handy to reach their desired policy. But in the Supreme Court, all of the "liberal" justices will agree that the Federal government can outlaw personal use marijuana because they believe the Federal government has that power, while only conservatives dissent in favor of the pot growers. Maybe the principles favor "liberal" or "conservative" policies best overall, but looking at the results of cases misses the point unless you take the principles as seriously as the justices do.
Great Work on the Supreme Court analysis. At the moment all the justices are serious people who take the law seriously with the possible exception of Sotomayer who seems overly results oriented. Also John Roberts occasionally seems more interested in policy than law but he's definitely serious. Amy Cony Barrett seems like a fine addition given her demonstrated temperament and knowledge as demonstrated in her hearing. One of the reasons I will not vote for Biden is his turning the judicial confirmation hearings into goat rodeos like the Bork and Thomas hearings he presided over.
I love your map of the decisions. you should share it with Ilya Shapiro, who's done a deep dive into the data of justices voting as "blocs." https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices
Ilya's article puts into context 5-4 decisions. Your map puts Ilya's article into the context of how many decisions aren't 5-4 at all. Very useful.
The graph you showed reminded me- at least in AP Government and Politics, we tended to look at the Supreme Court in conservative, liberal, and swing blocs. In the Rehnquist court, this was Sandra Day, Anthony Kennedy, and 1 other (Souter maybe?? It has been 17 years after all).
This seems at least a slightly more honest way of describing it.
I know there are multiple layers of courts (District and Appeals) that would make the visualization messy but it would be interesting if you could stack your bar charts in a way that showed whether the SCOTUS ruling was sustaining or overturning the lower court(s) ruling(s). I think it would be an fascinating to see if unanimous decisions were more often "smackdowns" of lower courts or amicable confirmations of their rulings. And if I had to guess, the split decisions likely occur mostly for cases where District and Appeals courts were in disagreement.
Or I could be horribly wrong and you would do a lot of work for nothing. :-)
It would seem the process works for the most part.
Even justices with obvious political opinions are able to rule subjectively?
I'd really like to here the private conversations, see how much dealing is going on, or if it;s just straight forward.