4 ms·

> If you lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court, and your expected side (in this case, progressives) This is a pretty clear first amendment issue that shouldn’t divide

> If you lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court, and your expected side (in this case, progressives) This is a pretty clear first amendment issue that shouldn’t divide among party lines. Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. The law is clear about this so the “progressive” judges wrote their opinion about what the law says. That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas.

jimbob45 2y ago
This is a pretty clear first amendment issue That's what OP is saying - someone wasted a ton of time and money on lawyers to receive a verdict that they should have known was coming.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Right, my main point being though that the expectation that a judge should rule for your "side" of the aisle is faulty and corrupt and not really a "progressive" thing. At least not from my recent recollection and I have a weird OCD habit of reading a lot of the denser text of these opinions. I will say that Kavanaugh has been a surprising force on the court, tending to vote by what he thinks the law says, so I'm not trying to blame any specific party here, just individuals that I probably do not need to name because it has been so prominent in the news cycle the last few years.
whoiscroberts 2y ago
What decisions would you recommend I read that demonstrate the conservative justices don’t care as much about the law rather than their political agenda? I make this claim all the time based on my instinct but always fall short when trying to demonstrate, what ruling led you to your conclusion?
- pjob 2y ago
  This is a recurring theme on the 5-4 podcast. You may want to reference their episode list as a starting point for relevant cases to research.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Justice Roberts, for instance, has had wildly conflicting and inconsistent reasoning behind striking down the federal healthcare mandate over the years. A cynical person would conclude that may have a little to do with his friendships with healthcare executives that "loan" him many hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't report. Just one example
- wormius 2y ago
  One example, where Alito reaches back to Witch Trials to justify his anti-abortion stance: https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-s... ... I understand "tradition" can play a role in jurisprudence, but this is clearly a bit much. Really to find super-obvious examples look at almost any judgement by Thomas, or Alito. The others (Roberts,Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett & Gorsuch have all been able to partly go against perceived partisanship now and then. This doesn't mean that there isn't left-wing jurisprudence operated by the "progressive" side of the aisle, but generally (I feel) it's more rare. Maybe if the court were 6-3 in the other direction it would be similar, where a couple extremist outliers would consistently vote with a strong Partisan bias. The weakening/overturning of the of federal oversight of the south's voting processes, which was originally mandated by the Voting Rights Act, is another one I would call pretty partisan. But that's just my view. YMMV.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Not a single decision, but Alito has never found a conservative lacked standing and always finds liberals lack standing. He is an outlier on this - Thomas isn’t as lopsided, nor are any of liberals on the court. https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/does-standing-follow-the-merits https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/does-standing-follow-th...
- gwd 2y ago
  The thing is, you can always find a rationale for whatever answer you want. So the evidence here wouldn't be to look at one individual case and see an obviously bad argument. The evidence would be to ask, are there any cases where the judges ruled on principle against their political preferences? Unfortunately I don't have exact cases, but there are many claims that conservative justices are very much "states rights" when it comes to things like abortion, but very much not "states rights" when it comes to things like gun control.
pdonis 2y ago
> That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas. That can be said about justices on all parts of the political spectrum. For just a couple of examples of egregious decisions by liberal justices pushing their own agendas, see: Kelo v. New London, Wickard v. Filburn.
lupusreal 2y ago
You say this case was a no brainer and only conservative judges would bodge something so obvious, but the fact of the matter is the Second Circuit royally fucked up this case in the ideologically predictable manner, which is the whole reason it went to the SCOTUS in the first place.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  I in fact said none of that
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I think that was a fair paraphrasing of what you said.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      You can think the sky is green but it doesn’t necessarily change reality.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        You're moaning about conservative justices ignoring the law for ideological reasons, in the discussion about a case which went to SCOTUS because progressive judges in the Second Circuit ignored the law. Gaslighting won't work on me, so you're wasting your time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ImJamal 2y ago
> Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. When was it ever not corrupted with parties? Marbury v. Madison happened in 1803 so at most 15 years.
- kccqzy 2y ago
  Marbury v. Madison was not corruption with parties. In fact to the contrary. It was a master move by Marshall to please both parties, and also established the principle of judicial review. In contrast to recent justices having a bias towards a party, Marshall managed to give both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans something they liked.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    You are looking at it in a different way than I am. While Marshall was extraordinarily gifted in the ruling and gave both sides part of what they wanted, he ultimately gave the Federalists, which he was a member of, the long term victory. He enshrined judicial review, which was very much up to debate, as a power the Supreme Court had. This power was then extended past federal laws into state laws. This is the exact thing that the Federalists wanted and the Democratic-Republicans opposed. Madison himself thought the congress should be able to veto state laws saying that it was "absolutely necessary to a perfect system". The current crop of Supreme Court justices are no where near as talented so their decisions are more blatant and immediate. Marshall was able to look long term and got his party what they wanted.

jimbob45 2y ago

This is a pretty clear first amendment issue That's what OP is saying - someone wasted a ton of time and money on lawyers to receive a verdict that they should have known was coming.

JohnMakin 2y ago
Right, my main point being though that the expectation that a judge should rule for your "side" of the aisle is faulty and corrupt and not really a "progressive" thing. At least not from my recent recollection and I have a weird OCD habit of reading a lot of the denser text of these opinions. I will say that Kavanaugh has been a surprising force on the court, tending to vote by what he thinks the law says, so I'm not trying to blame any specific party here, just individuals that I probably do not need to name because it has been so prominent in the news cycle the last few years.

whoiscroberts 2y ago

What decisions would you recommend I read that demonstrate the conservative justices don’t care as much about the law rather than their political agenda? I make this claim all the time based on my instinct but always fall short when trying to demonstrate, what ruling led you to your conclusion?

pjob 2y ago
This is a recurring theme on the 5-4 podcast. You may want to reference their episode list as a starting point for relevant cases to research.
JohnMakin 2y ago
Justice Roberts, for instance, has had wildly conflicting and inconsistent reasoning behind striking down the federal healthcare mandate over the years. A cynical person would conclude that may have a little to do with his friendships with healthcare executives that "loan" him many hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't report. Just one example
wormius 2y ago
One example, where Alito reaches back to Witch Trials to justify his anti-abortion stance: https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-s... ... I understand "tradition" can play a role in jurisprudence, but this is clearly a bit much. Really to find super-obvious examples look at almost any judgement by Thomas, or Alito. The others (Roberts,Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett & Gorsuch have all been able to partly go against perceived partisanship now and then. This doesn't mean that there isn't left-wing jurisprudence operated by the "progressive" side of the aisle, but generally (I feel) it's more rare. Maybe if the court were 6-3 in the other direction it would be similar, where a couple extremist outliers would consistently vote with a strong Partisan bias. The weakening/overturning of the of federal oversight of the south's voting processes, which was originally mandated by the Voting Rights Act, is another one I would call pretty partisan. But that's just my view. YMMV.
alistairSH 2y ago
Not a single decision, but Alito has never found a conservative lacked standing and always finds liberals lack standing. He is an outlier on this - Thomas isn’t as lopsided, nor are any of liberals on the court. https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/does-standing-follow-the-merits https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/does-standing-follow-th...
gwd 2y ago
The thing is, you can always find a rationale for whatever answer you want. So the evidence here wouldn't be to look at one individual case and see an obviously bad argument. The evidence would be to ask, are there any cases where the judges ruled on principle against their political preferences? Unfortunately I don't have exact cases, but there are many claims that conservative justices are very much "states rights" when it comes to things like abortion, but very much not "states rights" when it comes to things like gun control.

pdonis 2y ago

> That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas. That can be said about justices on all parts of the political spectrum. For just a couple of examples of egregious decisions by liberal justices pushing their own agendas, see: Kelo v. New London, Wickard v. Filburn.

lupusreal 2y ago

You say this case was a no brainer and only conservative judges would bodge something so obvious, but the fact of the matter is the Second Circuit royally fucked up this case in the ideologically predictable manner, which is the whole reason it went to the SCOTUS in the first place.

JohnMakin 2y ago
I in fact said none of that
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I think that was a fair paraphrasing of what you said.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    You can think the sky is green but it doesn’t necessarily change reality.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      You're moaning about conservative justices ignoring the law for ideological reasons, in the discussion about a case which went to SCOTUS because progressive judges in the Second Circuit ignored the law. Gaslighting won't work on me, so you're wasting your time.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ImJamal 2y ago

> Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. When was it ever not corrupted with parties? Marbury v. Madison happened in 1803 so at most 15 years.

kccqzy 2y ago
Marbury v. Madison was not corruption with parties. In fact to the contrary. It was a master move by Marshall to please both parties, and also established the principle of judicial review. In contrast to recent justices having a bias towards a party, Marshall managed to give both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans something they liked.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  You are looking at it in a different way than I am. While Marshall was extraordinarily gifted in the ruling and gave both sides part of what they wanted, he ultimately gave the Federalists, which he was a member of, the long term victory. He enshrined judicial review, which was very much up to debate, as a power the Supreme Court had. This power was then extended past federal laws into state laws. This is the exact thing that the Federalists wanted and the Democratic-Republicans opposed. Madison himself thought the congress should be able to veto state laws saying that it was "absolutely necessary to a perfect system". The current crop of Supreme Court justices are no where near as talented so their decisions are more blatant and immediate. Marshall was able to look long term and got his party what they wanted.