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. It's unusual if you consume a lot of news. I

> 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]
renewiltord 3y ago
SCOTUS is pretty partisan. It's only that not every subject has partisan advantage.

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]

renewiltord 3y ago

SCOTUS is pretty partisan. It's only that not every subject has partisan advantage.