4 ms·

Given that there were only two Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court at the time of this case, and four Republican appointees voted in the majority - inclu

Given that there were only two Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court at the time of this case, and four Republican appointees voted in the majority - including Scalia, this his hardly the work of "Democratic justices." Majority: Stevens - Republican (Ford) Souter - Republican (Bush) Ginsberg - Democrat (Clinton) Breyer - Democrat (Clinton) Kennedy - Republican (Reagan) Scalia - Republican (Reagan) And the dissenters: O'Conner - Republican (Reagan) Rehnquist - Republican (Nixon) Thomas - Republican (Bush)

WildUtah 13y ago
Thanks for your comment about partisan appointments. Even though there were seven Republican appointees at the time and two Democratic, the court was widely seen as having five Republicans and four Democrats. Mostly this was based on long experience watching the justices on both sides vote their partisan preferences on issues instead of the law and the constitution. The same court had served for a decade together by the time of Raich, so we knew a lot about them. The classic example is Bush v. Gore where the court openly admitted that they were voting for a president instead of applying the law. The decision specifically disclaimed any precedential authority because it wasn't an application of law. Five Republicans voted for Bush and four Democrats for Gore. Another classic example is Justice O'Connor's public statement that she would retire voluntarily only when a Republican could choose her replacement. Justices Souter and Stevens, in spite of being Republican appointments, waited just long enough to ensure Obama would choose their replacements. Stevens held the same opinions for thirty-five years while partisan politics moved around him to make him a Democrat. Souter was specifically chosen by Bush as a cross-party appointment out of fear that the court would overturn Roe v. Wade with another Republican and destroy Bush's chances of reelection.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The classic example is Bush v. Gore where the court openly admitted that they were voting for a president instead of applying the law. Well, except that they never said that.
- crystaln 13y ago
  You do realize that ideology is not cleanly divided between two political parties, and that neither party has a consistent ideology over time or at any given time? The two parties are simply political coalitions that evolve over time, and neither is right or wrong about anything. When a party can no longer provide an adequate political opposition with it's current positions, it will change it's positions to replace a dwindling ideological group with a growing one. Aligning yourself with a political party, or a political party with righteousness is ignorant factionalism. That is further true with Supreme Court justices, who have no reason to have any party affiliation, generally have none, and are far more nuanced, consistent, and reasonable than any political party. Yes, some lean more conservative than others on certain issues - as can be expected. It's sad to see the sort of Fox News / MSNBC style partisanship you represent on Hacker News, where what you disagree with is called "Democratic" and what you agree with is called "Republican."
  - WildUtah 13y ago
    "You do realize that ideology is not cleanly divided between two political parties, and that neither party has a consistent ideology over time or at any given time?" Yes, I do. "neither is right or wrong about anything." Actually, it's quite common for both to be right (robbery should be a crime), for either one to be right and the other wrong (starting a war with Iran would be bad no matter what Republicans think; trade protectionism is not good for our economy no matter what Democrats think), and for both to be wrong (infinite copyright is not good for creativity). "That is further true with Supreme Court justices, who have no reason to have any party affiliation, generally have none, and are far more nuanced, consistent, and reasonable than any political party." That is what I'd like to see, but recent history proves the exact opposite. Supreme Court justices align themselves with a party and pretty much follow it slavishly even contrary to their own declared ideology and rational conclusions. Maybe Justice Thomas is less partisan than most, but they're all far more partisan than ideological or rational. That's why I explicitly said Republican and Democrat and not left and right or conservative and reactionary. Lucky for us, most cases are still technical and detail rich rather than battles over federalism, abortion, and other hot button partisan issues. Our only remaining shred of non-partisanship on the court is that many issues don't yet have a partisan aspect. "It's sad to see the sort of Fox News / MSNBC style partisanship you represent on Hacker News, where what you disagree with is called "Democratic" and what you agree with is called "Republican."" It's the only realistic view of the present court and its appointment process, no matter how sad it is for the country. Also, what I disagree with is seldom called 'Democratic'; I'm a registered Democrat. It just so happens that partisan Republican motivated reasoning was better and more valid on the single case under discussion. Since I'm not trying to get appointed to the Supreme Court, I can afford to admit that.

WildUtah 13y ago

Thanks for your comment about partisan appointments. Even though there were seven Republican appointees at the time and two Democratic, the court was widely seen as having five Republicans and four Democrats. Mostly this was based on long experience watching the justices on both sides vote their partisan preferences on issues instead of the law and the constitution. The same court had served for a decade together by the time of Raich, so we knew a lot about them. The classic example is Bush v. Gore where the court openly admitted that they were voting for a president instead of applying the law. The decision specifically disclaimed any precedential authority because it wasn't an application of law. Five Republicans voted for Bush and four Democrats for Gore. Another classic example is Justice O'Connor's public statement that she would retire voluntarily only when a Republican could choose her replacement. Justices Souter and Stevens, in spite of being Republican appointments, waited just long enough to ensure Obama would choose their replacements. Stevens held the same opinions for thirty-five years while partisan politics moved around him to make him a Democrat. Souter was specifically chosen by Bush as a cross-party appointment out of fear that the court would overturn Roe v. Wade with another Republican and destroy Bush's chances of reelection.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The classic example is Bush v. Gore where the court openly admitted that they were voting for a president instead of applying the law. Well, except that they never said that.
crystaln 13y ago
You do realize that ideology is not cleanly divided between two political parties, and that neither party has a consistent ideology over time or at any given time? The two parties are simply political coalitions that evolve over time, and neither is right or wrong about anything. When a party can no longer provide an adequate political opposition with it's current positions, it will change it's positions to replace a dwindling ideological group with a growing one. Aligning yourself with a political party, or a political party with righteousness is ignorant factionalism. That is further true with Supreme Court justices, who have no reason to have any party affiliation, generally have none, and are far more nuanced, consistent, and reasonable than any political party. Yes, some lean more conservative than others on certain issues - as can be expected. It's sad to see the sort of Fox News / MSNBC style partisanship you represent on Hacker News, where what you disagree with is called "Democratic" and what you agree with is called "Republican."
- WildUtah 13y ago
  "You do realize that ideology is not cleanly divided between two political parties, and that neither party has a consistent ideology over time or at any given time?" Yes, I do. "neither is right or wrong about anything." Actually, it's quite common for both to be right (robbery should be a crime), for either one to be right and the other wrong (starting a war with Iran would be bad no matter what Republicans think; trade protectionism is not good for our economy no matter what Democrats think), and for both to be wrong (infinite copyright is not good for creativity). "That is further true with Supreme Court justices, who have no reason to have any party affiliation, generally have none, and are far more nuanced, consistent, and reasonable than any political party." That is what I'd like to see, but recent history proves the exact opposite. Supreme Court justices align themselves with a party and pretty much follow it slavishly even contrary to their own declared ideology and rational conclusions. Maybe Justice Thomas is less partisan than most, but they're all far more partisan than ideological or rational. That's why I explicitly said Republican and Democrat and not left and right or conservative and reactionary. Lucky for us, most cases are still technical and detail rich rather than battles over federalism, abortion, and other hot button partisan issues. Our only remaining shred of non-partisanship on the court is that many issues don't yet have a partisan aspect. "It's sad to see the sort of Fox News / MSNBC style partisanship you represent on Hacker News, where what you disagree with is called "Democratic" and what you agree with is called "Republican."" It's the only realistic view of the present court and its appointment process, no matter how sad it is for the country. Also, what I disagree with is seldom called 'Democratic'; I'm a registered Democrat. It just so happens that partisan Republican motivated reasoning was better and more valid on the single case under discussion. Since I'm not trying to get appointed to the Supreme Court, I can afford to admit that.