• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Before everyone slams the "partisan court"

M

mfdeacs99

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
231
Reaction score
17
Here are the actual votes on cases this term. As you will see 5-4 is not very common. If you see a few 5-4 votes next week and you decide to buy into the "hack court" arguments, here are the actual votes this term to show that you are wrong.

5-4 (three consolidated cases)
7-2
7-2
7-2
6-3
9-0
6-2
8-1
9-0
9-0
5-4
9-0
5-4
6-3
5-4
8-1
9-0
8-1
6-3
9-0
6-3
Per curiam
9-0
8-1
9-0
6-3
9-0
8-0
5-4
6-3
5-3
9-0
6-3
9-0
5-4
9-0
9-0
9-0
9-0
9-0 (consolidated cases)
8-0
7-2
8-1
8-1
5-4
5-4
9-0
9-0
6-3
9-0
9-0
6-3
9-0
9-0 (linked cases)
6-3
9-0
6-3
9-0
6-3
8-0
5-4
5-4
5-4
8-0
8-1 (linked cases)
 
Last edited:
Not sure that list means what you think it means. Here is the total by vote tally.

24 9-0 Seems like these are probably the no-brainers
4 8-0 Same
7 8-1 One dissenter

35 cases that basically go one way. I'm guessing most of these aren't political at all.

Here are the contested cases:

12 6-3 Be curious to see who went which way on these. Which bloc split off?
11 5-4 On party lines with the swing
4 7-2 Is this conservatives + 2? Interesting that 3 came early.
1 6-2
1 5-3
 
Your "guesses" are completely wrong. Every decision by the court has fairly significant ramifications and when it is a "no brainer" you do not get the four justices necessary to vote to hear a case.

Not counting the approximately 6000 prisoner demands, a little less than 100 of the 2,000 claims are granted certiori by the court to be heard.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me a decision in which all 9 justices agree with one decision is a no-brainer that they took up for a reason. You got examples of the 9-0 decisions?
 
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, religious liberty case regarding terminating employees

Sacektts v. EPA, on question of EPA enforcement on private property

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., scope of patentability of medical processes
 
You are simply wrong on this.

Even Fox v. FCC, a huge case, was 8-0, with one concurrence.
 
mfdeacs99 said:
Your "guesses" are completely wrong. Every decision by the court has fairly significant ramifications and when it is a "no brainer" you do not get the four justices necessary to vote to hear a case.

Not counting the approximately 6000 prisoner demands, a little less than 100 of the 2,000 claims are granted certiori by the court to be heard.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first half of this sentence, but definitely not the second. If there is a decision from a Circuit Court (particularly in the case of a case of first impression at the Circuit Court level or a rogue Circuit Court panel that creates a circuit split) and all 9 justices think it was wrongly decided, it would fall into the "no-brainer" category, and easily get the votes needed for cert. I have no desire to look this up, but I would guess that majority (and probably a large majority) of the 9-0/8-0 decisions are ones where the lower court decision is overturned.
 
Last edited:
Don't do any of your own research, or read the cases. Good argument, with lots of support.

Fox v. FCC, Second Circuit already vacated the order ruling in favor of Fox. Supreme Court rules with Fox over the FCC.

Sacket had no split and the Court overturned a unanimous 9th Circuit ruling that affirmed the district court. Again the government was extremely active in the case and the scope of EPA powers was a massive political controversy.

Mayo took up an issue the court refused to in 2006, in Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., leading to a dissent from Breyer and overturned a ruling in favor of the government. Despite government intervention on the controversial patent decision, affecting many businesses, the court ruled 9-0.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was an overturn of the Sixth Circuit and one of the largest religious freedom cases of the past twenty five years. Again the goverment intervened on behalf of the plaintiff in the highly charged case and was beaten 9-0 by the court.

Again, you are wrong.
 
I read somewhere where Roberts works very hard to get as many 9-0 outcomes as he can, more so than other chief justices. I wish I could find the citation as it was really interesting. It might have been in a an interview with a now retired justice who wrote a book about each chief justice.

However, I expect a 5-4 overruling of the mandate and GI/CR tomorrow with the rest of the law being upheld (medicaid expansion et al). It also wouldn't shock me to see the whole thing upheld with a 6-3 vote. I'll go ahead and stick with 5-4 as my vote.

Should be an interesting day tomorrow at my office.
 
SCOTUSblog does a great job with USSC statistics.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SB_statpack_061312.pdf

5-4 cases: Alignment of the majority
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito: 3
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: 3

On 5-4 decisons, the conservatives have won 50% of ideological splits for both 2010 and 2011.

Kagan is in the majority more than Scalia, including on divided cases.

The Court is not nearly as conservative as some want to make it out to be.
 
I predict they'll find the mandate unconstitutional. Obama's line needs to be, "it was a conservative idea, so I should have known it was probably unconstitutional."
 
19 of 21 constitutional law experts say the mandate should be upheld. It should be a slam dunk for Obama. If the decision is even close I think it's fair to say we have a hack court.
In a broad consensus, 19 of the 21 respondents said that the mandate should be upheld. The survey was emailed last week to constitutional law professors at the U.S. News & World Report’s top 12 law schools.
Click to expand...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/healthcare-reform-supreme-court-obamacare-professors-survey-individual-mandate.php
 
I'm guessing MF is not a lawyer. There are a number (vast majority) of non-political cases decided by the court where political leanings wouldn't even arguablely come into play.

The political cases get the most publicity, and at least to some people are the most important. If the court wasn't partisan, winning the white house wouldn't be as pivitol as it is today. I'm not sure what the solution is, b/c the court has already undertaken to address what could be described as policy issues and made them rights.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
Article from the WP discussing how this particular administration has been beat up by the USSC for its policies. It specifically notes that ideological bias is NOT to blame as the Obama administration frequently doesn't get a single vote from the court for its viewpoints.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a-tough-term/2012/06/24/gJQAhWWH0V_print.html
Click to expand...

Those look like primarily legal arguments, not policy arguments to me. So the lack of partisanship should not come as a surprise.
 
And btw, are people really arguing there isn't a political split on the court? Bush v. Gore wasn't that long ago and was decided right down party lines. I the majority even said that the case was of no precadential value. And this isn't a 'pub sucks thing, both sides on the court are involved in this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top