4 ms·

Your argument is wrong, but more saliently, is simply not in line with the data of thousands and thousands of cases. Judges on the "opposite" sides of the polit

by dvt 5y ago

Your argument is wrong, but more saliently, is simply not in line with the data of thousands and thousands of cases. Judges on the "opposite" sides of the political spectrum disagree just ~30% of the time. This shows that law is interpreted -- by smart, well-educated, professional justices -- very similarly across the board.

panda-giddiness 5y ago
Sure, most cases aren't polarizing, but that doesn't mean that the law is objective -- the other 30% of cases proves as much. Personally, I'd be more interesting in knowing how many cases split 5/4 (or 6/3) the obvious way versus how many cases were unanimous or nearly so.
- dvt 5y ago
  9-0 is far more common than 5-4, this is pretty common knowledge for anyone that follows SCOTUS, but here's a source[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...
  - panda-giddiness 5y ago
    Sorry, I see now that my comment was unclear. I mean of the 5/4 splits, I'd be curious what proportion of cases split 5/4 in the expected manner (Democratic vs Republican appointees) versus other alignments (e.g., Sotomayor, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Ginsburg versus the rest).
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      What you'd actually expect with political parties that aren't particularly cohesive or consistent over time isn't partisan consistency but that judges would vote consistently with the position of their appointing President on issues politically salient at the time of their appointment and less predictably otherwise. Which, it turns out, is what they tend to do.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Your argument is wrong, but more saliently, is simply not in line with the data It's perfectly in line with the data. > Judges on the "opposite" sides of the political spectrum Aren't that far apart because the American political spectrum is very narrow and the process for appointing and confirming judges has historically excluded judges from the extremes within that spectrum. Much like people who mistake the pre-internet age of narrow media dominance as one of greater media objectivity, you are mistaking common bias with objectivity.

by dvt 5y ago

panda-giddiness 5y ago

Sure, most cases aren't polarizing, but that doesn't mean that the law is objective -- the other 30% of cases proves as much. Personally, I'd be more interesting in knowing how many cases split 5/4 (or 6/3) the obvious way versus how many cases were unanimous or nearly so.

dvt 5y ago
9-0 is far more common than 5-4, this is pretty common knowledge for anyone that follows SCOTUS, but here's a source[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...
- panda-giddiness 5y ago
  Sorry, I see now that my comment was unclear. I mean of the 5/4 splits, I'd be curious what proportion of cases split 5/4 in the expected manner (Democratic vs Republican appointees) versus other alignments (e.g., Sotomayor, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Ginsburg versus the rest).
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    What you'd actually expect with political parties that aren't particularly cohesive or consistent over time isn't partisan consistency but that judges would vote consistently with the position of their appointing President on issues politically salient at the time of their appointment and less predictably otherwise. Which, it turns out, is what they tend to do.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Your argument is wrong, but more saliently, is simply not in line with the data It's perfectly in line with the data. > Judges on the "opposite" sides of the political spectrum Aren't that far apart because the American political spectrum is very narrow and the process for appointing and confirming judges has historically excluded judges from the extremes within that spectrum. Much like people who mistake the pre-internet age of narrow media dominance as one of greater media objectivity, you are mistaking common bias with objectivity.