4 ms·

Sure- but then you have to be careful defining labels. Trying to peg a generic one dimensional (left-right) or even two dimensional (social/fiscal) political p

Sure- but then you have to be careful defining labels. Trying to peg a generic one dimensional (left-right) or even two dimensional (social/fiscal) political position on justices is difficult, even with loosely defined labels/ categories. It's much easier to look at justices relative position/ rank on a per-topic basis. Alternatively, and less useful to the general public, but very useful to SCOTUS junkies, is looking at cross tabs of how often a particular justice votes with others. Especially when they break from the publically perceived left/right voting block, which is more often than most think. Scotusblog is full of this type of analysis for those interested: https://www.scotusblog.com/category/empirical-scotus/ https://www.scotusblog.com/category/empirical-scotus/ https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
And this is, in fact, precisely how the court is theoretically supposed to work. The two-dimensional partisan framing—which, unfortunately, is very real in other domains—is what's causing the court to break down.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Is the court breaking down?
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Kind of, yeah. Supreme court justices aren't elected, are appointed for life, and collectively have veto power over basically any law, should they choose to break (or gradually discard) historical norms. I think it's telling that neither Biden nor Harris was willing to rule out court-packing at the presidential debates, and at this point I think they're right to leave it on the table! But, it really would mark the beginning of the end of the Supreme Court. It's easy to predict what would probably happen the next time power changed...
    - solipsism 6y ago
      I think it's telling that neither Biden nor Harris was willing to rule out court-packing at the presidential debates, and at this point I think they're right to leave it on the table! The correct answer to that question was obviously, "Congress makes the laws, including ones about the number of SC justices, not the President."
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        “But if you were the president, and a law to add justices came across your desk, would you veto it?”
        beerandt 6y ago
        Plus the fact that Biden just this week claimed to be the head of the Democratic party. Hard to make that claim if you're not helping set policy.
nojito 6y ago
scotusblog is biased because they have/had a working relationship with Google.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Idk about Google... But they're biased for more reasons than that. But they are still an excellent source, and are about as good as it gets compared to most (supposed) non-partisan media these days. Fwiw, I also believe their bias to be almost entirely unintentional, which is way more than can be said for most sites. For topical seminars, where authors might actually argue for a side, they do a decent job of getting various opinions from multiple sources, even if it's not always exactly balanced 50/50. And they disclose all cases in which someone might be involved. Like anything else, you still need to consider the source when reading it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

And this is, in fact, precisely how the court is theoretically supposed to work. The two-dimensional partisan framing—which, unfortunately, is very real in other domains—is what's causing the court to break down.

pessimizer 6y ago
Is the court breaking down?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Kind of, yeah. Supreme court justices aren't elected, are appointed for life, and collectively have veto power over basically any law, should they choose to break (or gradually discard) historical norms. I think it's telling that neither Biden nor Harris was willing to rule out court-packing at the presidential debates, and at this point I think they're right to leave it on the table! But, it really would mark the beginning of the end of the Supreme Court. It's easy to predict what would probably happen the next time power changed...
  - solipsism 6y ago
    I think it's telling that neither Biden nor Harris was willing to rule out court-packing at the presidential debates, and at this point I think they're right to leave it on the table! The correct answer to that question was obviously, "Congress makes the laws, including ones about the number of SC justices, not the President."
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      “But if you were the president, and a law to add justices came across your desk, would you veto it?”
      - beerandt 6y ago
        Plus the fact that Biden just this week claimed to be the head of the Democratic party. Hard to make that claim if you're not helping set policy.

nojito 6y ago

scotusblog is biased because they have/had a working relationship with Google.

beerandt 6y ago
Idk about Google... But they're biased for more reasons than that. But they are still an excellent source, and are about as good as it gets compared to most (supposed) non-partisan media these days. Fwiw, I also believe their bias to be almost entirely unintentional, which is way more than can be said for most sites. For topical seminars, where authors might actually argue for a side, they do a decent job of getting various opinions from multiple sources, even if it's not always exactly balanced 50/50. And they disclose all cases in which someone might be involved. Like anything else, you still need to consider the source when reading it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]