Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

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

  • #2
    Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by NorthShoreCoug View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a moderate? Am I reading this correctly?
        "Remember to double tap"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by venkman View Post
          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.
          Last edited by RobinFinderson; 06-04-2009, 03:11 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            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
            Last edited by BlueK; 06-26-2018, 10:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BlueK View Post
              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.)
              You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
              Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

              Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
              You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                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.
                Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by falafel View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by BlueK; 06-26-2018, 12:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                    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.
                    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                      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.
                      Last edited by Uncle Ted; 06-26-2018, 12:15 PM.
                      "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                      "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                      "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by falafel View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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
                          "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                          Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Topper View Post
                            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.
                            PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Topper View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X