You realize this chart isn't particularly helpful to many of your arguments, right? Like the one where liberals are using the court to legislate? It's a pretty solidly right wing court and has been for years. I'm not sure of the metric used here, but the conservative judges aren't as close to center as you suggest in comparison with the liberal judges, either.
Yes. If I were in that position... I'd be a politician. Because that's how you get to do those things.
Consistency is not measured by whether rules are followed or not. A ref that always calls holding, for the same hand positions, even when not holding, is being consistent. A ref who calls it one way for one team and not the other is being inconsistent, even if the rules are not violated. Rules don't have anything to do with consistency. Consistency and normalcy are not the same thing. Measuring things based on numbers of occurrence is measuring normalcy, not consistency. It does not matter if people change their vote or not, the purpose is to make the vote known. It is not absurd, individual senator's votes aren't a reflection of the whole, they are a reflection of a very specific group of people, their electorate. National elections are dependent on the whole. It would not have been the same result, because one instance would have produced a voting record, and the other did not. Those are different results.
You cannot have balance without consistency. And higher order things are more important than lower order things.
I'm not sure how the chart could say anything about dems legislating from the bench. You claimed "Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been, aside from Thomas, the most conservative justice on the court and their leaning is as far right as the lefties on the court are left." This chart calls bull shit on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Even Alito stays closer to the center than Ginsburg and Sotomayor. But again, I have no idea how accurate it is, but I trust it more than your guaranteed partisan view. I think we also have a tendency to just assume that all Justices vote the direction they lean, but that's not really the case, especially for the conservative leans.
Trusting the chart without knowing the methodology of it is pretty stupid. Let's say for example that it measures court cases, and ranks a given case as a "conservative" or "liberal" case. And then assigns a weight based on the way the justices vote. Seems like sound methodology, right? But lets say that in a given year, 90% of the cases were "liberal" cases. If the liberal side votes 100% on the 90%, then it'll look like they are WAAAAY liberal, right, because the weight would be all on the 90%. Let's say that during that period, the court has a lot of conservative justices jump over to the liberal side, as they might do, then those 90% cases are going to bring more conservative votes over, and it'll make those conservative votes look more liberal. All because of the types of cases that made it to them. The next year it could be 90% the other way. Which means that this methodology isn't a measure of the justices... but of the cases. Still a sound methodology?
The Median line dipped below 0 literally as recently as what appears to be 2016. I misspoke with my previous comment. I probably should have added the word "true" before conservative lean. While conservatives have had the 5-4 majority at times, conservative justices, at least in the last 20 years, have been a lot more likely to swing moderate. You can see it on the chart, if you'd like, with Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy, and even Roberts, of late. Meanwhile, Democrats have done the exact opposite. Apply number values to the end points of each of those lines, and tell me what you get on average for Conservatives and Liberals. There are 3 Conservative Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts) under 1. There's not even a single justice on the liberal side who is below 1.5. Dem's have consistently appointed judges who are further on the Liberal side of the spectrum and less likely to sway moderate, at least recently. R's have had the opportunity to push a true conservative lean on the court but haven't done so. ACB should do that.
I know Uni's methodology: Orange man bad, Democrats correct. I'm willing to accept most any other methodology as an alternative. And again, I mainly pulled up the graph to look at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I had my suspicions of where they fall based on their limited time on the court so far, which has been far more moderate than everyone claimed it would be.
can you give some specifics? "dems want to legislate from the bench" is a political talking point, not a position held. give a specific example. it should be easy, unless you are out in front of your skis and just repeating things you hear.
what are the very left wing positions of Douglas that took him all the way down the y axis through the 60's and 70's?
The median dipped below 0 for about 3.5 years out of 30, based on how this chart measures the 0 line. That is neither "a while" nor significant. You cannot state that conservatives are more likely to jump over without knowing how that 0 line is evaluated. But one that that is "true" is that based on whatever methodology this chart used, the courts have had a conservative lean for decades.
Just because it is a bad overall methodology, doesn't mean it can't be a good methodology in specific circumstances. You cannot say they are moderate, even based on this chart, without knowing the methodology by which their position is charted. I cannot say this enough times.
the law is what we say the law is. For example, you have the right to vote... unless it is taken away. or you live in a district that is not given adequate resources for the number of voters to actually vote. So then is it even really a right at all? Seems apolitical, but looking at how SCOTUS has interpreted the right to vote, a right is more of a hypothetical ideal.
Rights means law in this country, and law is dynamic. There are no actual rights in this country; there may not have ever been.
do you think may it isn't the court going left, but rather the failed challenges being from the right? nah.
Of course I'm repeating things I've heard (and probably out over my skis at times). But that's how people formulate opinions. They read and hear things (hopefully from both sides of an argument) and they formulate their own opinion based on what they agree with and what makes sense to them. Roe v Wade is an example I've already provided in this thread. They should not have made abortion legal for the entire US. RBG herself stated that was a bad move. You could make a case for the recent Bostock v. Clayton County ruling. It loops gay and transgender into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, when Title VII very clearly prohibits employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (aka, not for being gay or transgender). This case is one of the few reasons Gorsuch has come across more moderate early on. And it's not to say that I want employers to be able to discriminate against employees for being gay or transgender. I just want the legislature to legislate against it, not the Supreme Court. Allowing appointed officials to make our laws, rather than elected officials, is a dangerous path. It takes the power away from the people.
I can say whatever the hell I want to say, and you can disagree with it. I say Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have leaned more moderate based on their decisions on the court thus far. If you disagree, fine. Feel free to prove me wrong. That the chart agrees with me is nice, but not necessary for the viewpoint I hold.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...urt-opinion-lgbtq-rights-shakes-conservatives This is what I'm talking about.
