4 ms·

Kagan and Roberts dissented. Seems like that would be an unusual duo to end up on the same side of a 7-2 ruling. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21

Kagan and Roberts dissented. Seems like that would be an unusual duo to end up on the same side of a 7-2 ruling. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf Since a few commenters have said this is common I'll just add... as far as I can tell this has not happened before. I could very well be wrong, but it looks like this is not a common occurrence. I would be fine with being proven wrong. "It is important to note that dissenting in a 7-2 decision is a rare occurrence. In fact, it has only happened 21 times since 1953." I really don't know, I just found it interesting.

eqmvii 3y ago
It’s not that unusual at all. The justices rule all over the map, but only certain hot button political issues expose the high level partisan divide. Most of their cases aren’t guns and abortion and corporate speech.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  "Guns and abortion and corporate speech" aren't even the cool cases. These are. You just don't hear about cases like this because you're supposed to be angry at the world, instead of appreciate how cool it is.
yieldcrv 3y ago
Unsubscribe from partisan news and your partisan friends and you’ll find thats not unusual at all
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  partisan news is redundant
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    yep, non-partisan news is an oxymoron. you really have to go to the source, read/skim the supreme court cases for yourself. then you'll find pretty much all the news is disingenuous and most people are parroting things based off that.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Kagan and Roberts dissented. Seems like that would be an unusual duo to end up on the same side of a 7-2 ruling. Its not, particularly, for an issue that isn’t tightly related to an issue that has been a strong partisan split of high salience in judicial nominations at the times they were appointed.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Kagan and Roberts dissented. Seems like that would be an unusual duo to end up on the same side of a 7-2 ruling. It's unusual if you consume a lot of news. In reality the supreme court isn't nearly as partisan as the news suggests.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  This is just not true. Kagan and roberts almost never are the only two to take a side. It’s true that they commonly agree, but those cases are usually 9-0 I also dispute your claim that they’re not as partisan as the news suggests. Some of their cases certainly aren’t, but every single session now has multiple extremely partisan cases where everyone who knows which president nominated which justice knows what the outcome will be.
  - bmelton 3y ago
    > everyone who knows which president nominated which justice knows what the outcome will be People commonly predict SCOTUS outcomes by knowing the judicial philosophies of the justices, but "which president nominated" them is a pretty poor determinant for how they'll rule. Gamble v US had Ginsburg and Gorsuch paired up in dissent, with Kavanaugh in the majority despite both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh having been Trump appointees. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have been at odds in many cases. Reed v Goertz, Turkiye Halk Bank, Bittner, Apple v Pepper, Myers v US, Murphy v Collier, Price v Dunn, and others that aren't immediately to hand. Adding in Amy Coney Barrett, and ignoring unanimous decisions, it's very hard to find cases in which Kav, Gorsuch, and Barrett are all in agreement. Beyond that, it's worth remembering that in any given term, cases are decided unanimously between one to two thirds of the time, and while there are outliers, tight partisan splits are generally about a quarter of the time or less in recent history. Sotomayor and Kagan represent the high-water mark for recent appointees being in agreement at 94% of the time, but fwiw, altogether Kagan and Roberts end up on the same side roughly 75% of the time.
- idontpost 3y ago
  [dead]
- 3y ago

eqmvii 3y ago

It’s not that unusual at all. The justices rule all over the map, but only certain hot button political issues expose the high level partisan divide. Most of their cases aren’t guns and abortion and corporate speech.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
"Guns and abortion and corporate speech" aren't even the cool cases. These are. You just don't hear about cases like this because you're supposed to be angry at the world, instead of appreciate how cool it is.

yieldcrv 3y ago

Unsubscribe from partisan news and your partisan friends and you’ll find thats not unusual at all

nonethewiser 3y ago
partisan news is redundant
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  yep, non-partisan news is an oxymoron. you really have to go to the source, read/skim the supreme court cases for yourself. then you'll find pretty much all the news is disingenuous and most people are parroting things based off that.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Kagan and Roberts dissented. Seems like that would be an unusual duo to end up on the same side of a 7-2 ruling. Its not, particularly, for an issue that isn’t tightly related to an issue that has been a strong partisan split of high salience in judicial nominations at the times they were appointed.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Kagan and Roberts dissented. Seems like that would be an unusual duo to end up on the same side of a 7-2 ruling. It's unusual if you consume a lot of news. In reality the supreme court isn't nearly as partisan as the news suggests.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
This is just not true. Kagan and roberts almost never are the only two to take a side. It’s true that they commonly agree, but those cases are usually 9-0 I also dispute your claim that they’re not as partisan as the news suggests. Some of their cases certainly aren’t, but every single session now has multiple extremely partisan cases where everyone who knows which president nominated which justice knows what the outcome will be.
- bmelton 3y ago
  > everyone who knows which president nominated which justice knows what the outcome will be People commonly predict SCOTUS outcomes by knowing the judicial philosophies of the justices, but "which president nominated" them is a pretty poor determinant for how they'll rule. Gamble v US had Ginsburg and Gorsuch paired up in dissent, with Kavanaugh in the majority despite both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh having been Trump appointees. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have been at odds in many cases. Reed v Goertz, Turkiye Halk Bank, Bittner, Apple v Pepper, Myers v US, Murphy v Collier, Price v Dunn, and others that aren't immediately to hand. Adding in Amy Coney Barrett, and ignoring unanimous decisions, it's very hard to find cases in which Kav, Gorsuch, and Barrett are all in agreement. Beyond that, it's worth remembering that in any given term, cases are decided unanimously between one to two thirds of the time, and while there are outliers, tight partisan splits are generally about a quarter of the time or less in recent history. Sotomayor and Kagan represent the high-water mark for recent appointees being in agreement at 94% of the time, but fwiw, altogether Kagan and Roberts end up on the same side roughly 75% of the time.
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
3y ago