Supreme Court confounding its partisan critics

Indeed, under Chief Justice John Roberts,unanimous opinions have continued to rise in number.

Looks like another progressive liberal myth shot all to hell and back.

Sounds to me like Supreme Court is working just fine as it is and just the way it was meant to.

SCOTUS is indeed working just fine as is, why Democrats want to change it at all is strictly political, and that has to be obvious to any person breathing possessing a brain.

Wait until next session when they hear about gun control and abortion.

I wouldn't enjoy the calm just yet.

The article mentioned that there would still be differences on key constitutional issues. 

The justices will continue to divide on some cases along ideological lines, particularly on constitutional cases. That is because these are principled jurists who view core jurisprudential issues differently. Americans themselves are equally divided on issues ranging from abortion to gun rights to race-based college admissions. Yet, although Democrats cry foul when five conservative justices vote as a bloc, they are entirely supportive of the liberal justices voting as a bloc on the other side of those decisions. One side is denounced as biased while the other is celebrated as enlightened.

Even so, there have been a number of major cases involving constitutional issues where justices have crossed the ideological line. Indeed, under Chief Justice John Roberts, unanimous opinions have continued to rise in number.

Of course, reality is rarely a barrier for politicians or pundits, particularly if news outlets distort the actual voting records of the justices. Moreover, President Biden has lacked the political courage or principle (that he once had as a senator) to stand up for the Court against his own party. Instead, he has created a lopsided Commission to appease the hard left. Yet, even with the Democratic members and an obliging media, the Democrats are facing a public that continues to overwhelmingly oppose packing or changing the Court. And the Court is not making this easy by speaking inconveniently as one.

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/54894/supreme-court-confounding-its-partisan-critics

Americans themselves are equally divided on issues ranging from abortion to gun rights to race-based college admissions. Yet, although Democrats cry foul when five conservative justices vote as a bloc, they are entirely supportive of the liberal justices voting as a bloc on the other side of those decisions. One side is denounced as biased while the other is celebrated as enlightened.

Just goes to show you that reality rocks and bull patty should beat feet! Keep revisiting settled law and we, liberals, will keep re-minding and re-focusing some conservatives attention on the 21st century where the citizenry has a right and entitlement to freedoms and liberties no one was obliged to consider in the 18th century.

[U]nder Chief Justice John Roberts, unanimous opinions have continued to rise in number.

The Chief Justice needs a reasonable court to be valid. After all, some conservatives and their "talk jocks" on radio and television are quick to point out pejoratively they are "nine unelected officials." And these unelected officials are keenly aware that everything they decide is closely scrutinized by some conservatives.

Of course, reality is rarely a barrier for politicians or pundits, particularly if news outlets distort the actual voting records of the justices. Moreover, President Biden has lacked the political courage or principle (that he once had as a senator) to stand up for the Court against his own party. Instead, he has created a lopsided Commission to appease the hard left. Yet, even with the Democratic members and an obliging media, the Democrats are facing a public that continues to overwhelmingly oppose packing or changing the Court. And the Court is not making this easy by speaking inconveniently as one.

The ("conservative") court should know that in this country we won't tolerate judicial bias or malfeasance. That is, we will "pack" the court or "change" the court as appropriate only. People are fed-up with rhetoric that hinders progress and peace for all concerned. We want access to justice and we want it YESTERDAY!

The ("conservative") court should know that in this country we won't tolerate judicial bias or malfeasance. That is, we will "pack" the court or "change" the court as appropriate only. People are fed-up with rhetoric that hinders progress and peace for all concerned. We want access to justice and we want it YESTERDAY!

Pretty sure the conservative court already knows that. Probably why Justices can "justify" their decisions on cases based on law. I think I've covered that already with you. 

What people are fed up with has no bearing on SCOTUS.

You have access to justice, so please stop with the histrionics.

Call it whatever floats some conservative 'boats.' SCOTUS is not our only court. However, the citizenry are fed-up with rhetoric that hinders progress and peace for all concerned. We want access to continuous justice and we want it YESTERDAY!

Climb down off the soapbox and just admit that you have as much access to justice as anyone.

Playing the poor victim card is silly.

Climb down off your soapbox and admit your article is in some ways premature. This is only the beginning of the challenges to court precedence from some conservatives. Nobody should be fooled by this fake attempt to (see @ 5.1.3 below) setup this discussion as more than what it really is!

Silly?  A weak attack.     Not Dirty Boy.

More doom and gloom, even though your dire predictions won't be coming true--as is true for many left-wing progressive liberal "predictions". 

See, the difference between you and I is that I deal with what the Court has actually done--not make silly, inaccurate predictions about what they MIGHT do.

Try it for a change of pace, you may even come to love reality!

Why LORD why?!

Why LORD why?!

I suggest you quietly ask God that question.

Let me know what He says!

Looks like another progressive liberal myth shot all to hell and back.

I've said it several times in the past, I hoped the new conservatives on the court would do their jobs impartially and that attempts to pack to court by Democrats would be ill-advised. I'm glad that seems to be the case. Of course it was still ridiculously hypocritical for Republicans to justify sitting on Obamas supreme court pick for nearly a year claiming it should be the next President and the will of the people who elect them to make the call, but then rush through Barrett's confirmation literally weeks before the election. It's no wonder that Democrats don't trust Republicans or their court nominees. Thankfully, even the most conservative Justices Republicans could ram through confirmation apparently turned out to take their jobs as justices seriously and are able to be impartial even though many of their fellow conservatives wish would lean farther to the right in their rulings. What is also of note in this seed is how the supposedly "radical left" justices are even writing majority opinions for conservatives like Gorsuch and Thomas.

Kind of the point of this article.

The doom and gloom predicted by so many on the left has simply not happened.

Many on the right believe Justices will rule based on law.

Seems correctly so.

I am glad you see the wrongness in some Democrats calling to pack the Court.

Well said. And three cheers for the Rule of Law. However, there are new cases (some conservatives will see to it that the 'old' becomes a 'new challenge' again) every day. So I am not amused. All I, we, anybody should want is what's right, decency, and even wholesome from our courts - since we can't seem to pull such out of the depleted republicans and conservatives in Congress.

Let me be clearer: Our constitution is a very old document casted in something of a by-gone era. That is, if strictly adhered to it is a conservative document. Some conservatives are pushing a setup for us to praise the conservative court for being themselves philosophically and dogmatically. However, when it comes to the thinking man's understanding of the world of today, some conservatives will WHINE when the court steps away from the words (and 'old-school' meanings) on the constitutional 'page.'

That said, corruption is something that seeps in over time if matters are not watched over and protected. More power to those who "watch and protect."

The left had been petrified of John Roberts and predicted a radical shift to the right when he was selected as Chief Justice.  What was amazing was that in several opinions, he ruled exactly opposite of what the RIGHT expected.

Fortunately, the right did not go out into the streets and protest and riot, engage in looting and arson to voice their displeasure.  They smartly left those activities to the radicals of the left.

There you go again: needlessly pointing a finger. Y'all hit the bricks often enough. (Trashed the federal capital in D.C. even. So you go 'big.') Therefore, don't go patting yourselves on the head and shoulders just yet. We should all want the best for the nation/states/communities and all the freedoms we can all possibly stand!

The left is fantastic at dire predictions which seemingly never come true.

Not one thing wrong with SCOTUS except some Democrats want to make it a political body instead if a judicial body.

Deflection, projection, and denial.  Is that all you have XM?

Look at some conservatives "trumpeting" the conservative-led court for its judgments—until they don't!

The problem is the court is not cooperating. Instead, consensus has been breaking out on a court that is supposed to be "too partisan and unbalanced to trust." Apparently, it still has life in it as a functioning, ethical body.

General agreement between liberals and conservatives is the best we can all hope and aspire to achieve. It means there is something for us all there to ponder and reflect upon. However, when the "major" dividing cases arrive, we will have to see what we will see and feel then and there.

I choose to believe that Justices rule on points of law, not on ideologies.

I know progressive liberals don't think that way.

And some conservatives don't either or y'all would criticize Donald and Mitch for their abuse in 'crammin' the courts with conservatives ideology under cover of law! Of course, principle and tradition went out of the window, but what are principles anyway to some conservatives?

Please cease the whining about who got to nominate and place judges.  It is childish and unseemly.

Biden has his chance now. Let's see what he does with it.

The point of the article, which it appears you missed altogether, is that SCOTUS is far less divided than the Democrats like to admit. And since Justices make ruling based on law, some Democrats don't like it when their favorite things get shot down.

SCOTUS isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp for Democrats.

y'all would criticize Donald and Mitch for their abuse in 'crammin' the courts with conservatives ideology under cover of law!

Pretty sure this will be a stumper and thus ignored, but here goes anyways!

Can you cite ANY recent rulings that display "conservative ideology", how they are conservative, and which "liberal" Justices voted differently?

I choose to believe that Justices rule on points of law, not on ideologies. I know progressive liberals don't think that way.

@3.1 you WHINED that. It really was not that long ago. . . how can you not remember it? Don't waste time lecturing me on communication. As for the remainder of your bull patty see @3!

Look, I know that you have missed the entire point of the article.

Here it is:

SCOTUS is acting exactly as it should and as planned by the framers.

Democrats just fearmonger every single time a Republican President nominates anyone. Every new Justice will end Roe!!!

Stop the hyperbole and look at the facts.

SCOTUS is passing more unanimous decisions now.

Pretending the Court is a political body is just stupid as hell.

The court is doing fine and each new case is an opportunity for scrutiny. Nobody is going to 'kiss,' as some conservatives like to put it pejoratively, "nine unelected men and women" and praise them profusely. So you can miss me, us, with that.

SCOTUS is doing the work they are supposed to do. They are doing so with some unanimous decisions. For that I give SCOTUS props! But, don't try to hood-wink us with a line about what we should accept from a conservative court—once it goes "full conservative" on 'roids!

And that last sentence about the courts being "a political body" does not 'attach' itself to me. I have not used the concept (yet).

The question is moot. Read the damn thread (already).

But, don't try to hood-wink us with a line about what we should accept from a conservative court—once it goes "full conservative" on 'roids!

Ah, yet more progressive liberal fearmongering. Just stop the crap. All you are doing is projecting anyways.

The question is moot. Read the damn thread (already).

Oooh, so sorry, but I already have. BTW, I seeded the article, in case you haven't noticed.

pretending otherwise is insanely juvenile.

Wink-wink.

Is that your worse insult, "stupid" @3.1.5 and "juvenile" @3.1.9. Well, it is not registering with me beyond the eyeballs.

Well, it is not registering with me beyond the eyeballs.

Oh my, what a shocker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/s

Let's put some conservatives' seat back in the upright position and return to the topic. OKAY?!! Other than humor, what else you got to 'say' there, Texan?

Other than humor, what else you got to 'say' there, Texan?

Have you been not understanding what I have already posted? Didn't I ask you earlier if you didn't understand something in my posts to ask for clarification?

"I know progressive liberals don't think that way."

How do you 'know this'?

Well, see, first I read what they post.

It is an amazingly easy thing to do, and when one does it, they can gain insight into how others think based on what they post.

Let me know if I can help any more!

My respect for the SCOTUS will depend on whether Amy Conan Barrett reverses the recent State legislation limiting the rights to abortion, i.e. does not interfere with the rule in Roe vs Wade.

Virtually every single Justice nominated by a Republican President since Roe vs. Wade has been the "one" to end abortion in America.

Time for Democrats to stop that fearmongering.

Cut the crap! Some conservatives can't quit abortion as a political wedge issue voting poll 'trough' and as a pester issue for courts to disenfranchise a girl or woman of her right to privacy. Which some conservatives quite clearly go so far as to defend by stating (whining) that a girl or woman is not permitted privacy in the constitution.

That is so pathetic!

Some conservatives can't quit abortion as a political wedge issue voting poll 'trough' and as a pester issue for courts to disenfranchise a girl or woman of her right to privacy.

I agree, some can't. But that doesn't really have anything at all to do with SCOTUS, now does it? 

Personally, I agree that a woman should have all the abortions she can afford and chooses to have.

Apparently, despite all the dire predictions of doom and gloom for Democrats, so does SCOTUS.

Why can't you agree that a girl or woman can have all the privacy she can afford and chooses to have (as long as it does no harm to others)? Don't play coy with me, Texan! I see bull patty and call it out.

Speaking of calling out the aforementioned - that is, bull patty :

Pro-choice advocates protest in front of the Supreme Court in early March 2020 (Casey Quinlan)

The Supreme Court on Monday set the stage for a major ruling next year on abortion – one that could upend the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey , in which the court ruled that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion before a fetus becomes viable. The court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , a challenge to the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that (with limited exceptions) bars abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.

The decision to review the Mississippi law comes nearly  a year after the court struck down a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. In that case, five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, relied on Casey in ruling that the Louisiana law imposed an undue burden on the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion. But the make-up of the Supreme Court has changed since the ruling in the Louisiana case last June: One of the justices in the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, died in September and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose personal opposition to abortion drew criticism from Democrats at her confirmation hearing.

When the Mississippi legislature passed the law at the heart of the case in 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization – the only licensed abortion provider in the state – went to court to challenge the law’s constitutionality and block the state from enforcing it. A federal district court agreed with the clinic, reasoning that the Supreme Court’s cases do not allow states to ban abortions before a fetus becomes viable, which occurs at around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, rejecting Mississippi’s argument that the Supreme Court’s cases required the district court to determine instead whether the law creates a “substantial obstacle” for a person seeking an abortion before the fetus becomes viable. There is no substantial obstacle, the state suggested, because a patient could decide to have an abortion before reaching the 15th week. But the Mississippi law is not merely a restriction on the availability of pre-viability abortions, the court of appeals stressed; it is a ban on pre-viability abortions. The law prohibits all abortions after 15 weeks except in cases of health emergencies or fetal abnormalities.

The state went to the Supreme Court last summer, asking the justices to rule on whether all bans on pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional. The state also asked the justices to weigh in on two related questions: whether courts should consider a state’s interests – such as protecting the health of a mother – when reviewing the constitutionality of laws that restrict pre-viability abortions, and whether abortion providers have a legal right to challenge laws that ban or restrict abortions on behalf of their patients.

The clinic urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the dispute, stressing that the Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution protects the right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable. The court should deny review of the question whether abortion providers have a right to sue, the clinic added, because Mississippi “waived this challenge — it was not raised below and the State, in fact, conceded jurisdiction and does so again in its petition.”

The justices repeatedly rescheduled the case – that is, put off considering it at their private conference – before finally considering the state’s petition for review for the first time at their Jan. 8, 2021, conference. The justices then considered the petition 12 more times before announcing on Monday that they would take up the first question presented in the state’s petition: whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution.

The case will be heard in the fall, after the justices return from their summer recess . . . .

[More at link below.]

Amy Howe, Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade , SCOTUSblog (May. 17, 2021, 11:55 AM), scotusblog

|\

Texan, spare me the sanctimonious bull patty. I had not planned to post nearly the entire article, but this material is the point, per se. Some conservatives are persistently meddling in a girl or woman's privacy and liberty, while putting on a fake display that they care about liberty and privacy for all!

It's bull patty and more to the point 99.99 percent of some conservatives know it's bull patty!

Come this fall or early 2022 we will see just how unanimous SCOTUS is! Then we will "toot" or "jeer" accordingly.

Why can't you agree that a girl or woman can have all the privacy she can afford and chooses to have (as long as it does no harm to others)? Don't play coy with me, Texan! I see bull patty and call it out.

I do agree with that, so cut the crap. We were talking specifically about abortion rights, weren't we?

Screw your "calling me out" crap--whatever you think THAT means anyways.

Texan, spare me the sanctimonious bull patty. I had not planned to post nearly the entire article, but this material is the point, per se. Some conservatives are persistently meddling in a girl or woman's privacy and liberty, while putting on a fake display that they care about liberty and privacy for all!

I have already admitted that some conservatives are doing that, so who are you arguing with now?

Once again--you ignored the fact t hat SCOTUS doesn't have dick to do with that.

We were talking specifically about abortion rights, weren't we?

Why can't you agree that a girl or woman can have all the privacy she can afford and chooses to have (as long as it does no harm to others)? Don't play coy with me, Texan! I see bull patty and call it out.

And you "screw" the fact that SCOTUS will have "dick" to do with that in Fall 2021- early 2022!  I just illustrated with SCOTUSBLOG why the future is not dependent on now.

Why can't you agree that a girl or woman can have all the privacy she can afford and chooses to have (as long as it does no harm to others)? Don't play coy with me, Texan! I see bull patty and call it out.

Oh, for Pete's sake. You already posted that nonsense and I have already responded, so quit trying to misrepresent what I have clearly and plainly stated. See post 5.1.4, and if you need further clarification of the plainly-written post, do let me know.

What you claim is "calling me out" is nothing more than bullshit, as I have already agreed with you on the "point".

And you "screw" the fact that SCOTUS will have "dick" to do with that in Fall 2021- early 2022!  I just illustrated with SCOTUSBLOG why the future is not dependent on now

More projection on you part, as we do not know what the rulings will be, nor do we know what all the cases will be.

Of course, most people already know that, and now, so do you.

Your doom and gloom is depressingly sad, hyperbole and nothing more.

Just stop already. This is boring me.

I won't let some conservatives 'shoot the Messenger.' Oh and. . . Yawn.

I am sure it must be boring after getting called out repetitively for the same lame tactics.

If you stop, perhaps it won't be so boring for you.

Ah, he's got pictures now!

Well, my work appears to be done here. Moving on. . . .

That seems wise.

I don't recall it being the issue in the past that it became because Barrett had previously made her personal feelings about abortion MORE than clear.  Had she not, I would not have made my comment.

Just because someone feels strongly about something for themselves or their families, doesn't mean that they believe it should be that way for everyone. 

Example: I wouldn't get an abortion, but feel I have no right telling someone else how they should live their lives or choose things that are best for themselves. Hell, my mother even offered to take me to the clinic when I got pregnant with my son, but guess what, he'll be 13 next month. My mother had two abortions in her life [for different reasons] and I don't condemn her for it, because it was what was right for her at those times. The first one, my grandparents [who were VERY Catholic BTW] had to take my mother to NY for the procedure, because it was before R v W and MI didn't allow abortions yet.

Exactly.

It's funny how some people go on about individual rights being taken away when it comes to things like Covid mandates or gun control or other such things. But some of them have no qualms about taking away a woman's right to choose or have an abortion. It's rather hypocritical. 

Dogma (religious or otherwise) seems to be the only thing some have in their repertoire to argue or justify with.

Indeed. Beware those who tend to wave the flag or thump their bibles the hardest. They tend to be the biggest threats. Or the biggest hypocrites.

"Time for Democrats to stop that fearmongering."

Projection, plain and simple.

All you got Tex?

Correct! Instead of red-states talking to girls and women with respect and promoting equality for women  and equity in pay so that women can feel better and actually do better in society; red-state conservatives chose to come up with a brand (Pro-life) that immediately and promptly brought into being its opposite on the spectrum ( Pro-choice).

These excuse me, IDIOTS try to compel women to birth babies just for the sake and hope that, at least as far as some conservatives are concerned, some percentage of them will turn out conservative politically.  Helping to swell their decreasing and anemic political population.

Some conservatives, if you want more girls and women to give you babies - agree with the female gender about its rights, privileges, and privacy. Let them decide what issues when and where from their bodies. That is, stop throwing stones; stop persecuting girls and women. And ASK politely, and you will see more children come forth into the light of day.

Oh and red-states help put down some of the strife and gun violence in our nation - girls and women want their children to come into a better world than the one they individually ordeal and toil in!

Projection, plain and simple.

I am real sorry you didn't understand.

All you got Tex?

What are you looking for?

You made your own decision about your personal self and was not forced to do what others wanted.  Nothing wrong with that.  My comments are only voicing my curiosity as to how Barrett would decide for others, and whether it was either legal precedent or her personal faith that will shape her decision..

I believe that ACB will go with legal precedent, but I suppose that's merely my opinion. 

You conflate two separate issues.  Roe vs. Wade can be allowed to stand while allowing certain states tinkering around the edges of it and using science known now not known in 1972 to expand the state interest in the preservation of human life.  A roll back from 22 weeks to pain threshold being active in the baby would be doable while still preserving roe.  

using science known now not known in 1972

Such as?

to expand the state interest in the preservation of human life.

How is that a "state interest?" The state doesn't care if a couple chooses to procreate or not. States do not mandate or regulate that. So how is abortion in their interest?

A roll back from 22 weeks to pain threshold being active in the baby would be doable while still preserving roe.  

A fetus doesn't feel pain at 22 weeks. Actual modern science says that! So if you want to try and use science, you defeat your own argument.

Republicans fear a Democrat SCOTUS as much as Democrats fear a Republican SCOTUS, saying anything different is just jaundiced jabberwocky.

The truth being we should desire a straightforward and unpolitical court across the board! I tire of the bull patty in the media and across social media about the selection and 'branding' of judges. Even worse, when a judge come onboard his or her bench and proves the stereotype!

The truth being we should desire a straightforward and unpolitical court across the board

That is what I desire, and I prove that by allowing the Court to make decisions based on law rather than what progressive liberals believe decisions should be made on.

I tire of the bull patty in the media and across social media about the selection and 'branding' of judges.

So you are getting tired of branding SCOTUS now?

Hmmm...........perhaps calling it a conservative court like it is a disease leads people reading your posts to conclude that you aren't tired of it at all and proudly and loudly partake in it.

Things that get old and tiresome on the platform (in their element). Time for a new way of looking at the 'musty' Constitution of the United States.

Drift much?

Telling it like it is, is all.

BTW, my post had everything to do with what you have been posting, so drifting is kind of out of the question.

Time for a new way of looking at the 'musty' Constitution of the United States.

So you somehow think that SCOTUS is looking at the U.S. Constitution in a way that is wrong?

Please elaborate on how they are doing it wrong and why they need to change.

Assuming that you have examples, of course, and not just repeating some statement you heard somewhere.

Petty. Boring. Yawn. You need help with your insults. Get more depth to your articles, Texan. Good bye.

Thanks for once again avoiding questions.

I don't fear either one. I just hope that anyone in such a position can be unbiased and look at facts without prejudice and nothing more.