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.