You can say whatever thing you want to say, yes. But you cannot say what the chart says, because you haven't established that the chart is saying what you think it is saying. Because you don't know the methodology. That is the proof I have provided for many posts. Your statements based on the chart might be wrong. They might be right. We cannot say, you are just assuming it says what you think it says, and going with it. And I'm saying that you cannot do that, if your source is the chart, without first showing that the chart is saying what you think it is saying. I mean, yes, you can. But it doesn't make it legitimate. "Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have leaned more moderate based on their decisions on the court thus far" More moderate than what? What is moderate? Which decisions? How do you determine whether it was a "moderate" decision? These are the questions you aren't providing answers to, you're just pointing to a chart, without knowing if the chart answers those questions.
Which of these things is saying what you think it is saying? Why is supporting LGBTQ rights a "liberal" thing, and not just a "people" thing? Again, is supporting segregation a conservative thing? Of course not. But this is like saying that.
I just pointed out a decision on the last page. I don't care enough to point out more. I know they exist, and that's enough for me. If you want to disagree, you're also welcome to do so. If you have some evidence to support why you disagree, I'll be happy to read it. You have yet to provide any.
It's about reading the law and ruling based on what it says. Conservatives thought Gorsuch was going to do that. In this decision, he didn't. If you want a law that prevents employers from firing gay/transgender people for being gay/transgender, vote for legislators who will pass laws that do so. That's how the process is supposed to work.
So a "conservative" justice rules on what the law says, and "liberal" justice doesn't? So what is a moderate, then? Someone who just makes shit up?
Just voted! Waited just over an hour so not bad. Unfortunately, they will not let you set fireworks off in the parking lot following your vote.
All I have done is provide evidence. If I can't find out what you consider evidence, I can never provide any to you. And if your evidence is only going to be confirmation bias... You can prove things to yourself? Congrats? The 14th Amendment applies to the LGBTQ decision. And it supersedes Congress. So I ask, again, why is LGBTQ a "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" decision? (In case you are wondering, this is more evidence.)
I don't have think I have time to argue with you, so I'm just going to put this out there. But not only are the justices moving left (downward on the graph) but presumbaly the law and cases are too. Brown vs the Board had to come before Affirmative Action cases because gotta get equality of opportunity before you pursue equality of outcomes. So the cases that they are ruling on are increasingly in what was "liberal territory" (a conservative position on affirmative action isn't reprehensible/evil (IMO), but a conservative vote on Broun was). If the judges are moving left faster than the cases, only then will it will make those lines turn down. As a helpful illustration, Reagan said "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me." There was some truth to this. If Reagan had a been a supreme court judge then his line would have moved upward rather than downward if his policy positions didn't change.
All that to say that the chart Indy posted is useful and it is not necessarily expected that lines would move downward.
Yes, cases are increasingly liberal at the time of ruling. And considered moderate these days, depending on how long ago the ruling was. Which was one of the points. The 0 line would have a slope. As a helpful illustration, does the methodology of this chart consider Brown to be a "liberal" or "conservative" position? Or a 0 line position? You're arguing in agreement with something, without knowing what that something is. I'm saying it isn't known what that something is.
Based on what, your belief of what it shows, or ... do you have the methodology at hand? Because I'll take the methodology, and we can look at it, and see if it is showing what you believe it shows.
Douglas' leftward trajectory was things like "states can't dictate your reproduction decisions" and "we shouldn't be bombing Cambodia illegally." these things apparently make him the most left wing justice of all time?
Now sign off and stay away for a few days, if you want to get any work done for the rest of the week.
I mean, even just eye balling it, just about every justice from the 70s onward started higher than they ended, almost like by the end of their lifetime of service, what was middle shifted... like there should be a slope, on the 0 line. Weird.
almost like conservatives attempted to legislate through the courts, failed, then decided to pursue political control of the courts... and I think even said so out loud. to the point of inventing an axis that doesn't move
There are a number of differences between the two. Traditionally, Conservative justices stick to what the Constitution says and meant at the time it was written. Liberal justices see the Constitution as changing with the changing times and feel compelled to change what its terms mean, as a result. Conservative justices traditionally believe that in restraint when the Constitution is unclear - that they should not override a law when they can't say for certain that it clearly violates the Constitution. Liberal justices are more open to imposing their views. Conservative justices traditionally keep their own feelings, thoughts, and opinions out of their rulings. That's why I don't give a [uck fay] what ACB thinks, personally about abortion. I want her to keep her own feelings, thoughts, and opinions out of her rulings. Liberal justices, as Obama put it, are more open to empathizing and allowing their own viewpoints to impact their decisions. A moderate is someone who does a little bit of all of this. Gorsuch is viewed as a conservative, but he's taken a liberal stance a number of times early on in his tenure. Kavanaugh too.
empty talking points. you call things liberal without even considering that perhaps the conservative opinion was not supported by the law. kavanaugh and Gorsuch made choices not based on pleasing liberals or disappointing conservatives, but based on looking at what was there before them. ideally, this is what all the judges are doing all the time. if you don't think so then you already believe the court is partisan and can't raise fears of legitimacy on adding seats.