Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 30 at 9:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Trump Appointees siding with majority.

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10265
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Trump Appointees siding with majority.

Post by TC Talks » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:46 pm

It looks like Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch are behaving pretty centrist siding with the majority over 80% of the time.

Meanwhile, Thomas and Alito have become outliers. Alito is already become aggravated by the fact he can't find any support for his perspective.

Maybe God wanted to keep free will intact in the United States and save us from the wacko Christian right.
WASHINGTON — The arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October seemed to create a 6-to-3 conservative juggernaut that would transform the Supreme Court.

Instead, judging by the 39 signed decisions in argued cases so far this term, including two major rulings on Thursday, the right side of the court is badly fractured and its liberal members are having a surprisingly good run.

That picture may change, as the court has yet to issue the term’s last 15 decisions. But some trends have already come into focus.

The conventional wisdom last fall was that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s leadership, with its bias toward incrementalism and moderation, was over. With five justices to his right, including three appointed by President Donald J. Trump, the chief justice’s ability to guide the court was thought to have evaporated.

The story of the term so far, though, is a different one. Indeed, it is the court’s most conservative members who are issuing howling dissents and aggrieved concurrences to protest a majority they say is too cautious.

That majority very often includes Mr. Trump’s appointees, notably Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is now at the court’s ideological center, replacing the chief justice.

This term, Justice Kavanaugh has voted with the majority in divided cases 87 percent of the time, more than any other member of the court, according to data compiled by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Kevin Quinn of the University of Michigan.

In his entire tenure, which started in 2018, Justice Kavanaugh has been in the majority 85 percent of the time, the highest rate of any justice since 1953.

“Kavanaugh’s record of voting with the majority in divided cases is extraordinary,” Professor Epstein said.

The two other Trump appointees are not far behind. Justice Barrett is second, having voted with the majority 82 percent of the time this term. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch tied for third with Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, at 80 percent. Justice Kagan’s rate of voting with the majority jumped 12 percentage points since last term.

By contrast, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative who might have thought that his views would be embraced by his new colleagues, was in the majority in divided cases just 36 percent of the time. That helps explain his aggrieved tone in concurring and dissenting opinions on Thursday in cases on a clash between claims of religious freedom and gay rights in the context of foster care and on the Affordable Care Act.

In the foster-care case, Chief Justice Roberts managed to cobble together an improbable six-justice majority for an opinion that ruled so narrowly for a Catholic charity that Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, said it “might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops.”

The court’s three liberal members — Justices Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — joined the chief justice’s opinion, presumably with gritted teeth and to avoid an actual decision, one written on regular paper with indelible ink.

Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined, too, explaining that they were not inclined to make a major move when a minor one would resolve the case.

Something similar happened in Thursday’s second big case, this one rejecting a third major challenge to the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s health care law. The majority said the plaintiffs — 18 states led by Texas, and two individuals — had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue. The court sidestepped questions about the constitutionality of a key provision of the law and what should happen to the rest of it if the court held the provision unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts assigned the majority opinion to Justice Breyer, presumably knowing he would deliver a modest and technical opinion, one that ended up speaking for seven justices — the broadest majority of three Supreme Court decisions rejecting challenges to the health care law. The same coalition that joined the chief justice in the foster care case, plus Justice Clarence Thomas, saved the law.

Justice Alito was aghast. “Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two,” he wrote, joined by Justice Gorsuch. “In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, said the decisions “suggest that several key justices are willing to temper their views to join the chief’s longstanding battle to have the court decide cases more narrowly and with a more unified voice.”

But he added a note of caution. “What remains to be seen,” he said, “is whether, notwithstanding the chief’s best efforts, his battle to promote a nonpartisan image for the court is ultimately a losing one.”

So far this term, the court’s three Democratic appointees have voted with the majority 73 percent of the time in divided cases, slightly ahead of the 72 percent rate of the six Republican appointees. In the term that ended last year, the gap was 14 percentage points in favor of Republican appointees.

The change may be explained by strategic voting. The court’s Democratic appointees have not hesitated to join unanimous decisions with conservative outcomes, as labeled by the Supreme Court Database at Washington University. The percentage of liberal decisions in unanimous cases so far this term is just 30, the lowest since at least 1953.

But the story changes in divided cases, where 64 percent of decisions have been labeled liberal, the highest since 1968.

“Going into this term,” Professor Epstein said, “the expectation was a bunch of divided decisions with the three Democratic appointees getting the short end of the stick. So far that prediction is way off the mark. In divided cases, the Trump appointees have moved the court to the left. If anyone got the short end of the stick, it’s this year’s most conservative justice, Alito.”

That may change in the next two weeks, as the court issues decisions in the remaining 15 cases of this term. In any event, said Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, this term’s coalitions may be fragile.

“More than in most recent terms, Chief Justice Roberts was able to present a credible picture of a nonpartisan court, with Justices Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett in particular seeming to go out of their way to forge centrist alliances,” Professor Dorf said. “However, the justices appear to have reached a truce rather than a lasting peace. With high-profile abortion and gun control cases already on the docket for next term, ideological disagreements will likely re-emerge sooner rather than later."

Obamacare Ruling. In a seven-justice majority, the court ruled that the plaintiffs in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act did not have sufficient standing to sue. While the law’s future now seems secure, new fights over health policy are likely to emerge.

Religious Freedom and Gay Rights. The court ruled unanimously in favor of a Catholic agency that had refused to work with same-sex couples applying to be foster parents.

More Decisions to Come. The court is set to rule on a case that could determine scores of laws addressing election rules in the coming years. It will also issue a ruling on whether students may be disciplined for what they say on social media (here’s an audio report on that subject; and here’s where public opinion stands on several of the big cases).

What to Watch For. The approaches that Amy Coney Barrett, the newest justice, and Brett Kavanaugh, the second-newest, take. They will be crucial because the three liberal justices now need at least two of the six conservatives to form a majority. Before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberals needed only one conservative.

Looking Ahead. Next year’s term, which will start in the fall, will have cases on abortion, guns and perhaps affirmative action, and could end up being the most significant term so far under Chief Justice John Roberts.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

TC Shuts Up
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:10 pm

Re: Trump Appointees siding with majority.

Post by TC Shuts Up » Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:41 pm

More likely they are running scared of something they have dug up from their past. It's hard to believe any more than one was compromised at Epstein Island.


Disagreeing with Communists is NOT an impeachable offense.

Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.

Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic