The 3-3-3 court.
-
-
You mean the "conservative" justices aren't monolithic?
-
@Jolly said in The 3-3-3 court.:
You mean the "conservative" justices aren't monolithic?
And neither are the liberals.
-
@Jolly said in The 3-3-3 court.:
You mean the "conservative" justices aren't monolithic?
And neither are the liberals.
@LuFins-Dad said in The 3-3-3 court.:
@Jolly said in The 3-3-3 court.:
You mean the "conservative" justices aren't monolithic?
And neither are the liberals.
That doesn't seem like a reasonable take-away from the piece. The liberals are indeed monolithic in culturally loaded cases.
-
The piece seems sloppily thought out.
The Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s student loan debt forgiveness plan. That was a 6-3 case that lined up ideologically and was by nearly any measure an important one. But if that case were decided only along the ideological axis, then why did five of those conservative justices uphold the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement plan? That decision held that states — in this case Texas and Louisiana — couldn’t sue to force the president to deport undocumented immigrants who had been convicted of crimes while in the United States? This was also considered a highly political case while it was pending before the court, but because it was decided 8-1 in favor of the Biden administration, it barely got any attention.
Because the conservative justices are capable of adjudication along legal rather than ideological lines, on a case-by-case basis? Is that a trick question? Why would a case become "unimportant" if it shows bipartisan support amongst the justices, while remaining culturally loaded? Wouldn't those cases be an important measure of which justices are capable of breaking free of their alleged ideological capture? Now, which judges show that capacity, and which don't? The answer is before us, but the article's authors don't seem to want to say it. Or maybe they're just too stupid, that's always possible.
-
The bottom line is this. Cases are “important” based on whom you ask. And they’re “divisive” when that person’s important cases don’t come out the way they wanted them to.
Those are stupid distillations of whatever data the authors had already laid out. A case is divisive if the electorate considers it so, which means a case is divisive if it's culturally loaded. The only case in the article where the three liberal judges did not align, is one with no obvious cultural loading, about a state requiring companies to agree to be sued there if they do business there. As for whether a case is considered "important", why does it matter whether anybody considers a case important? Why is that even an idea the piece needs to present?
