2 ms·
I don't think it'd be legal, but when the court's this divided, there needs to be some penalty for losing 9-0. You're trying to do something that egregiously wr
by dehrmann 3y ago
I don't think it'd be legal, but when the court's this divided, there needs to be some penalty for losing 9-0. You're trying to do something that egregiously wrong and defend it?!
- asperous 3y agoI don't think the score necessarily reflects the strength of the case. Particularly weak cases are dismissed or handled in lower courts with appeals dismissed. Second, the court's makeup is politically decided Third, the court has in the past ( roe v wade ) chosen to be unanimous when reports say internally there was some dissenters.
- icodestuff 3y agoRoe v. Wade was 7-2, not 9-0.
- tbrownaw 3y ago> needs to be some penalty for losing 9-0. Public mockery on teh interwebs?
- dehrmann 3y agoThat counts as cruel and unusual.
- SllX 3y agoThe lines of division aren’t as clear as who appointed who. 9-0 decisions are not uncommon, and recent decisions suggest it may be more of a 3-3-3 court with an Institutionalist axis and the “partisan” axis hyped by the media is obscuring a much more salient Judicial doctrine axis. But we’ll know more about how well that 3-3-3 theory holds as the body of opinions published by Justices Barrett and Jackson becomes more fleshed out.
- dehrmann 3y ago> Institutionalist axis That's an interesting take. I'm guessing the divisions are Bush appointees are institutionalists, Democrat appointees are partisans, Trump appointees are partisans?
- torstenvl 3y agoIn my view: Thomas, Alito, Coney Barrett tend to be partisan conservatives. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kagan tend to be mainstream jurists (whether that's "institutionalist," I'm not sure). If you see Kagan side with the conservatives or Gorsuch, Roberts, or Kavanaugh side with the liberals, it's usually in favor of the mainstream, centrist, legal establishment view. The differences between them tend to relate to mainstream legal debates (e.g., the proper role of Chevron deference in the administrative state; Kagan was an admin law professor, whereas Gorsuch in particular is skeptical of Chevron deference). Sotomayor, Brown Jackson tend to be partisan leftists.
- NoToP 3y agoNot at all. Thomas is the biggest political hack on the bench. The Trump Era appointees were basically federalist society picks and surprisingly institutionalists. Obama only got one person on the bench thanks to McConnells games iirc. So the recent polarization hasn't leaked into the court via the appointments of the polarized Era. It just sort of happened the same as it did to the population at large.
- semiquaver 3y ago> Obama only got one person on the bench Obama appointed Kagan (who was also his SG) and Sotomayor.
- NoToP 3y agoI did not rc. Thanks.
- SllX 3y ago
- bpodgursky 3y agoI don't think the defendant or prosecutor deserves a punishment, but the lower court that made such an egregiously wrong call needs to be corrected somehow. They are passing problems upstream and making the SC waste time setting precedent on cases that should be blindingly obvious.
- Ancapistani 3y agoI’d say it depends on context. If the lower court ruled based on precedent - even if it was misapplied - then they’re doing what’s expected of them.
- dehrmann 3y ago> I don't think the defendant or prosecutor deserves a punishment The attorneys on the losing side might be the most "guilty" because they should have known better.
- quickthrower2 3y agoThe Statute of Gloucester of 1278 might have something about it.