This chart is from wikipedia, so I have no idea if it's accurate or not. Still, I found it interesting to look at. This graph agrees with what I've been saying regarding Gorsuch and Kavanaugh being closer to the center than Uni and others would have everyone believe. Again, they're still very early in their tenure, but they are much closer to the center than all the Liberals, which may speak to Volst53's point about conservative justices being more willing to jump the line, even with the 6-3 majority.
I don't think ACB is the kill shot you guys see her as. Again, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have come in a lot closer to the center than most expected. If that trend continues, we are looking at 3 hard liberals, 3 hard conservatives, and 3 who lean conservative but tend to stay more moderate.
Ideologies naturally become more liberal over time. Reflecting backwards without considering what was considered liberal at that time is an invalid exercise. Which is what this graph is. I mean, who actually wants to go back to women can't vote? (A liberal ideology back in the day). Or that we should segregate?
It changes the ideology of the court from what it was been for the last several decades. That's not an if. That's what it does.
Has the Senate ever failed to vote on a nominee before? The answer is yes. So how is McConnell's action inconsistent? The "establishing a record" thing is pretty weak.
Really? Ok, let me try to explain the difference between consistency and "oh, this happened once or twice before." Know that football game where a player came off the bench and tackled a guy returning a kick, that would have won the game? If that happened, say, next week, would it be valid to say "Oh, but it happened back once before, so how is that action not consistent with football?" No. It would be a pretty stupid question, right? Like, really, really stupid. But here we are. You asked it. You just used politics instead of football. Establishing a record is not weak. It's how you measure politicians--how they vote.
How do you know that they aren't accounting for that? For all you know, 0, in any given year, could represent moderate in that particular year. I'm assuming they are accounting for that, otherwise, 0 would have to be moving as well, would it not?
No, axis are fixed, you move what you are charting around the axis. You have taken a math course before, right?
has the court ever been expanded before? You can be so arbitrary when trying to hold a position you didn't reason into.
I'm not the one posting "consistency" in every single post. I'm also not staunchly against expanding the court, if it's done the right way. My problem sits with the court having a conservative lean to it for the first time in a while, and the left immediately responding to that by expanding it to take back the liberal majority.
Democrats have a history of shenanigans when it comes to republican nominations, if I'm not mistaken. And again, the R's desire to take control of the Supreme Court stems from the Dem's desire to legislate from the bench.
I'm not going to play these games with you. If you don't want to use the graph, don't use the graph. I trust what it's showing much more than I trust Uni's assertion that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, in their very limited time on the court, have been the ideological opposites of Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg.
It is readily apparent that consistency in posting is definitely not something you do, singly, or otherwise. Court has been conservative for a long, long time. Appointing another conservative judge expands that lean. The only way to bring it back to what it was at the start of this month would be to then add two justices, which wouldn't be a liberal majority. It would still be a conservative majority, of one.
You aren't even using the friggen graph, otherwise you wouldn't say " sits with the court having a conservative lean to it for the first time in a while" when the damn MEDIAN line clearly is above 0 for decades. If we're both not going to use the graph, we might as well not use it the right way.
No because a player coming off the bench to tackle someone is against the rules. Is not voting on a Supreme Court nomination against the rules? How many times does something have to happen before it can be considered "consistent?" Who decides what that number is? Are you strongly against dem's rejecting nominations across the last 50 years? Is that consistent? I understand what establishing a record is. I just don't think that's even close to what was on McConnell's mind to drive his decision making. First, the idea that any significant percentage of people in the 2016 American populace would change their vote for Senate based on the incumbent's vote in a Supreme Court Nomination is borderline absurd. Further, the idea that any individual Senator's vote would cause more negative heat than the R's took, as a whole, by opting not to vote in the first place, is even more absurd. Lastly, I don't think it's fair to assume that McConnell had accepted that Trump would lose and was just trying to maintain the Senate. I think McConnell was definitely holding out hope of winning the presidency and keeping his majority. They took a calculated risk to justify their actions of not holding the vote, and it completely backfired. Stupid move on their part. Should have held the vote. Would have been the same result.
