The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread

Metaphysicist said:
Don’t worry Bedell. The rumors of Roberts’ drift have been greatly exaggerated.
Click to expand...

Roberts is concerned with the respect people have for the court so he wants to try to keep the decisions more measured. The abortion case this past term was a good example. He didn't want the court overruling a case it had so recently decided (a Texas case I think) and so he sided with the left. Ultimately, he doesn't want to see either extreme of the court pull things too far. I think he wants a gradual progression to the right but to keep things more moderate.

People like to divide the court into left and right but they don't divide that easily. They all fall along a spectrum. On the far right you have Thomas with Alito slightly center of him. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the conservative side of things but they're more moderate than people might think. Roberts is conservative but is effectively a moderate because of his concern for the court as the Chief Justice.

On the left side you have two blocks. Kagan and Breyer form one and Sotomayor (and formerly Ginsburg) the other. Kagan and Breyer are closer to the center than Sotomayor who is essentially the liberal Clarence Thomas. My guess is Barrett will be something akin to Alito.

What you might end up seeing is effectively three groups. You could see Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer vote as one block with Thomas, Alito, and Barrett as the other. So whichever side captures two of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch will prevail. That means the court will likely sit to the right but the majority decisions will only go as far as Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts allow. So my prediction is a right leaning court but not an extreme right leaning court.
 
striker42 said:
Roberts is concerned with the respect people have for the court so he wants to try to keep the decisions more measured. The abortion case this past term was a good example. He didn't want the court overruling a case it had so recently decided (a Texas case I think) and so he sided with the left. Ultimately, he doesn't want to see either extreme of the court pull things too far. I think he wants a gradual progression to the right but to keep things more moderate.

People like to divide the court into left and right but they don't divide that easily. They all fall along a spectrum. On the far right you have Thomas with Alito slightly center of him. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the conservative side of things but they're more moderate than people might think. Roberts is conservative but is effectively a moderate because of his concern for the court as the Chief Justice.

On the left side you have two blocks. Kagan and Breyer form one and Sotomayor (and formerly Ginsburg) the other. Kagan and Breyer are closer to the center than Sotomayor who is essentially the liberal Clarence Thomas. My guess is Barrett will be something akin to Alito.

What you might end up seeing is effectively three groups. You could see Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer vote as one block with Thomas, Alito, and Barrett as the other. So whichever side captures two of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch will prevail. That means the court will likely sit to the right but the majority decisions will only go as far as Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts allow. So my prediction is a right leaning court but not an extreme right leaning court.
Click to expand...


Good analysis -- and I think you are right. Gorsuch's liberal theology will have a play in things no doubt. Roberts is all about the prestige of the court and so he's in play. And the left may have some regrets in their attempts to destroy Kavanaugh. My suspicion is that he would have been even more persuadable on issues...

Justices are people you know.
 
Last edited:
striker42 said:
Roberts' reasoning was crazy.[...] It was a terribly reasoned decision. Upholding it as an exercise of the commerce clause would have been infinitely better. [...] The current ACA case is ridiculous. [...] it's very difficult to make a rational argument...
Click to expand...

I mean, you get it. The point is you can't really rely on "well, that is a really bad legal argument" because that is not something that stops the court from doing what it wants.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I mean, you get it. The point is you can't really rely on "well, that is a really bad legal argument" because that is not something that stops the court from doing what it wants.
Click to expand...

This is true. Honestly, predicting the court is fool's errand. Who would have predicted Gorsuch siding with the left on the transgender case?

And you're right, the court will do what it wants. Many justices conclude what they think the best result is and then dig up legal reasoning to support it.

However, the ACA case would shock me. If they hold that a penalty of $0 is not severable, I'm not sure what would be severable. And severability isn't just a niche doctrine that comes up every once in a while. It's an extremely important part of law that comes up all the time. I'm not sure there's enough momentum on the court against the ACA that you get 5 justices to so drastically shake up severability.
 
striker42 said:
This is true. Honestly, predicting the court is fool's errand. Who would have predicted Gorsuch siding with the left on the transgender case?

And you're right, the court will do what it wants. Many justices conclude what they think the best result is and then dig up legal reasoning to support it.

However, the ACA case would shock me. If they hold that a penalty of $0 is not severable, I'm not sure what would be severable. And severability isn't just a niche doctrine that comes up every once in a while. It's an extremely important part of law that comes up all the time. I'm not sure there's enough momentum on the court against the ACA that you get 5 justices to so drastically shake up severability.
Click to expand...


The Gorsuch position on the transgender case wasn't shocking if viewed theologically (he's a member of the theologically/socially liberal Episcopal Church). Again, Justices are people and people are full-orbed. Whether they admit it or not, their worldviews aren't reducible to judicial philosophies. I'm happy when they try to be consistent employing their judicial views, but not shocked when other things factor into their decisions -- it happens to us all.
 
BedellBrave said:
The Gorsuch position on the transgender case wasn't shocking if viewed theologically (he's a member of the theologically/socially liberal Episcopal Church). Again, Justices are people and people are full-orbed. Whether they admit it or not, their worldviews aren't reducible to judicial philosophies. I'm happy when they try to be consistent employing their judicial views, but not shocked when other things factor into their decisions -- it happens to us all.
Click to expand...

There's an interesting caveat to Gorsuch's opinion. The case was actually two combined cases, one about gender identity and the other about sexual orientation. Gorsuch's reasoning was that a male who identifies as a woman or a man who is attracted to men wouldn't be fired if he was a female. A female who identifies as a woman or who is attracted to males would keep her job and so firing the male is on the basis of sex.

The problem? It doesn't protect bisexuals. If an employer has a rule that anyone attracted to both men and women is fired, a male that is attracted to men and women wouldn't have a different result if he was a female. Such a rule wouldn't be on the basis of sex as Gorsuch's opinion lays it out.

I think what we saw in that case was Gorsuch tendency to get really into playing word games with statutes.
 
When the dogma live loudly

"...Those who value our First Amendment right to religious freedom should realize that tests about belief are attacks on religious liberty. And positioning dissenting Catholics as “mainstream Americans” and believing Catholics as “extremists”—now a common and thoroughly dishonest culture war technique—is a particular affront to the free exercise of religion. It puts the rights of far more Americans at risk than will ever be nominated for the court."

Just say "no" to the religious bigotry of religious secularists.
 
Lol

All the people trying to act like they hate Catholics conveniently leave out they are all voting for Biden

A devout catholic

Living in the south for years, I’ve heard more Christians from different sects call Catholics not real Christians though

But I digress
 
goldfly said:
Lol

All the people trying to act like they hate Catholics conveniently leave out they are all voting for Biden

A devout catholic

Living in the south for years, I’ve heard more Christians from different sects call Catholics not real Christians though

But I digress
Click to expand...


Y'all have little trouble -- at least for now -- with Biden claiming Roman Catholicism, so long as he doesn't actually hold to its teachings on life, sexual ethics and the like.
 
Last edited:
I said link me to it

Lol, that’s a good one

I didn’t mention anyone by name

But nice of you to think it’s you lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top