The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[RobinFinderson]

Someone recently pointed me to THIS chart outlining liberal vs. conservative trends in the Supreme Court. I thought folks here would find it interesting.

[NorthShoreCoug]

Someone recently pointed me to THIS chart outlining liberal vs. conservative trends in the Supreme Court. I thought folks here would find it interesting.

Very interesting. I'd love to play with the numbers a bit to test some hypotheses. For example, a brief examination seems to indicate that most justices become more liberal over time - is that really true? If the numbers were in a table, it'd be a pretty easy hypothesis to test.

[RobinFinderson]

Very interesting. I'd love to play with the numbers a bit to test some hypotheses. For example, a brief examination seems to indicate that most justices become more liberal over time - is that really true? If the numbers were in a table, it'd be a pretty easy hypothesis to test.

Here is the link offered at the site to download the spreadsheet form.

[venkman]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a moderate? Am I reading this correctly?

[RobinFinderson]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a moderate? Am I reading this correctly?

No, you are not reading that correctly. If you switch to see how her votes stack up for a given year (by column), you will see that she is the THIRD most liberal member of the court in the most recent year recorded. Her number scores are all on the liberal side, throughout her career, and show a trend toward becoming increasingly liberal as time goes on.

[BlueK]

I wasn't sure which thread to put this under. But this decision that came out the other day stating that police need a warrant to track cell phones is the Constitutionally correct one, IMO. What is a little troubling to me is that it was only a 5-4 decision with the 4 being the conservatives except for Roberts. Why are conservative justices voting for a loose interpretation of the 4th amendment and for more government power when they claim to be strict constructionists and about limited government? This is the kind of thing that has made me lean libertarian over the years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.390d4de99d44

https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/22/...hone-location/

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/62255...hone-locations

[Walter Sobchak]

I wasn't sure which thread to put this under. But this decision that came out the other day stating that police need a warrant to track cell phones is the Constitutionally correct one, IMO. What is a little troubling to me is that it was only a 5-4 decision with the 4 being the conservatives except for Roberts. Why are conservative justices voting for a loose interpretation of the 4th amendment when they claim to be strict constructionists? This is the kind of thing that has made me lean libertarian over the years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.390d4de99d44

https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/22/...hone-location/

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/62255...hone-locations

IANAL, but I read that Gorsuch's dissent was not so much of a "dissent" per se but that the majority doesn't go far enough. The source escapes me know (regrettably), but perhaps others can chime in. (No mention was made of the other dissenting opinions.)

[falafel]

I wasn't sure which thread to put this under. But this decision that came out the other day stating that police need a warrant to track cell phones is the Constitutionally correct one, IMO. What is a little troubling to me is that it was only a 5-4 decision with the 4 being the conservatives except for Roberts. Why are conservative justices voting for a loose interpretation of the 4th amendment and for more government power when they claim to be strict constructionists and about limited government? This is the kind of thing that has made me lean libertarian over the years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.390d4de99d44

https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/22/...hone-location/

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/62255...hone-locations

I think this decision has to be read in light of the prior case law on this issue, which essentially can be summed up as "you don't have an expectation of privacy for things that you voluntarily disclose to a third-party", or something along those lines. The most common example is trash on your curb.

[BlueK]

I think this decision has to be read in light of the prior case law on this issue, which essentially can be summed up as "you don't have an expectation of privacy for things that you voluntarily disclose to a third-party", or something along those lines. The most common example is trash on your curb.

but this was about where a cell phone is located at any given moment. if you have a cell phone you've given up every right to expect privacy about where you are? That's a huge stretch to me. It doesn't seem to match the "conservative" value of limited government powers. Just have the government show the judge enough to get a warrant. It shouldn't be that hard. if the Founding Fathers knew of a device people carried around that always showed where they were, who they talked to and pretty much everything you wanted to know about that person, no way in hell would they not think the 4th amendment would require a search warrant for the police to get that information.

[falafel]

but this was about where a cell phone is located at any given moment. if you have a cell phone you've given up every right to expect privacy? That's a huge stretch to me. It doesn't seem to match the "conservative" value of limited government powers. Just have the government show the judge enough to get a warrant. It shouldn't be that hard. if the Founding Fathers knew of a device people carried around that always showed where they were, who they talked to and pretty much everything you wanted to know about that person, no way in hell would they not think the 4th amendment would require a search warrant for the police to get that information.

So you agree with the majority that its too much to ask a person to give up when they simply sign up for a cell phone plan. All I am saying is that the prior case law led us to this point, so I'm not surprised that its only a 5/4 decision. Drawing a bright can be a difficult thing to do.

[Uncle Ted]

I wasn't sure which thread to put this under. But this decision that came out the other day stating that police need a warrant to track cell phones is the Constitutionally correct one, IMO. What is a little troubling to me is that it was only a 5-4 decision with the 4 being the conservatives except for Roberts. Why are conservative justices voting for a loose interpretation of the 4th amendment and for more government power when they claim to be strict constructionists and about limited government? This is the kind of thing that has made me lean libertarian over the years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.390d4de99d44

https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/22/...hone-location/

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/62255...hone-locations

Figures the conservative judges voted this way... it sounds like they just gave AT&T a new revenue stream:

"But today, some of the greatest threats to individual privacy may come from powerful private companies that collect and sometimes misuse vast quantities of data about the lives of ordinary Americans," he said. "If today's decision encourages the public to think that this Court can protect them from this looming threat to their privacy, the decision will mislead as well as disrupt."

They can now sell your private data to law enforcement instead of being forced to give it to them for free.

[BlueK]

So you agree with the majority that its too much to ask a person to give up when they simply sign up for a cell phone plan. All I am saying is that the prior case law led us to this point, so I'm not surprised that its only a 5/4 decision. Drawing a bright can be a difficult thing to do.

Yes, I agree with the majority decision on this one.

[Topper]

The Fair Share for Unions fee extractions are unlawful now as Abood is reversed. Once again Liberals are hostile to the First Amendment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1466_2b3j.pdf

[creekster]

The Fair Share for Unions fee extractions are unlawful now as Abood is reversed. Once again Liberals are hostile to the First Amendment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1466_2b3j.pdf

I never understood Abood. I am glad it was reversed.

[BlueK]

The Fair Share for Unions fee extractions are unlawful now as Abood is reversed. Once again Liberals are hostile to the First Amendment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1466_2b3j.pdf

I have no problem with this decision. And I'm not a "progressive." But admittedly it is harder for me to get worked up about something dealing with labor unions than a case about whether the government can access your cell phone without a warrant.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Kennedy announces his retirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueK]

Kennedy announces his retirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sucks. He was the best one there.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Kennedy announces his retirement.

Boo

[All-American]

This is going to be ugly.

[creekster]

This is going to be ugly.

It might inject even more liveliness into the mid term elections.

[All-American]

It might inject even more liveliness into the mid term elections.

Might?

[BlueK]

If anything it's more likely to liven up the democrats more.

[BlueK]

By the way, about the travel ban...Venezuela is on the list. Really? There is a credible terrorist threat from there? That's a population friendly to the US even if the wacko dictator at the head of the country is not. Seems ill advised not to welcome dissidents wanting to come here.. Remind me what the purpose of this thing is.

[creekster]

By the way, about the travel ban...Venezuela is on the list. Really? There is a credible terrorist threat from there? That's a population friendly to the US even if the wacko dictator at the head of the country is not. Seems ill advised not to welcome dissidents wanting to come here.. Remind me what the purpose of this thing is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.15adb8f72c44

[Uncle Ted]

That sucks. He was the best one there.

Yeah, too bad it wasn't this one...

[Uncle Ted]

By the way, about the travel ban...Venezuela is on the list. Really? There is a credible terrorist threat from there? That's a population friendly to the US even if the wacko dictator at the head of the country is not. Seems ill advised not to welcome dissidents wanting to come here.. Remind me what the purpose of this thing is.

Yeah, Venezuela is full of those crazy catholics... they are worst than the muslims!

[Uncle Ted]

I am guessing right after the midterms elections are over.

[Topper]

I am guessing right after the midterms elections are over.

Do it now. RBG is a necessary counterweight on the Court. I don't want just one voice on the Court.

Several good decisions have come down this term, though I'm not pleased with the Amex antitrust decision.

[Uncle Ted]

Do it now. RBG is a necessary counterweight on the Court. I don't want just one voice on the Court.

Several good decisions have come down this term, though I'm not pleased with the Amex antitrust decision.

No reason to get the dems all pissed off and fired up over an young, very conservative pick (the "anti-RBG") just before the election... who knows what the crazy "violent left" is might do. They might actually blow up the white house or something!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey guys, good thing we elected Trump. He may take US politics to historical lows, divide the country as never before, drag us into a crippling trade war, and seriously degrade our power and influence internationally, but by golly he will get to make another Supreme Court pick. Nothing is more important than that, right?