3 ms·

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

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.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  > 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. That is because of the incorporation of the bill of rights. The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is that some of the Amendments in Bill of Rights apply to both the federal and state governments. The second amendment is one of those amendments (at least according to the conservative justices) and as such they should be protected at the federal level. Abortion is not listed in the constitution and as such the 10th amendment takes precedence and the states can decide. The more liberal justices do the same thing with amendments and come up with their own justification for which amendments are fully and partially incorporated.

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.

ImJamal 2y ago
> 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. That is because of the incorporation of the bill of rights. The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is that some of the Amendments in Bill of Rights apply to both the federal and state governments. The second amendment is one of those amendments (at least according to the conservative justices) and as such they should be protected at the federal level. Abortion is not listed in the constitution and as such the 10th amendment takes precedence and the states can decide. The more liberal justices do the same thing with amendments and come up with their own justification for which amendments are fully and partially incorporated.