These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

I think he's more saying that scotus is acting cowardly by only taking cases in which they will all agree in order to fight against court packing. Not so much that they are voting incorrectly.

SCOTUS was intended to be apolitical by the framers. The 9-0 rulings are a breath of fresh air and show that these 9 can have a camaraderie and acknowledge intelligence despite wildly different political philosophies.

OG UNF said:

---

SCOTUS was intended to be apolitical by the framers. The 9-0 rulings are a breath of fresh air and show that these 9 can have a camaraderie and acknowledge intelligence despite wildly different political philosophies.

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

Many are, but don't get a lot of attention because they're such minor cases with no precedent beyond said case.

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

Less than half the cases are decided that way, but yes, they are common.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Unanimity-7.20.20.pdf
It would be interesting to see how many of those that aren't unanimous are 8-1 or 7-2.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

SCOTUS is a corrupt bureaucracy like every other part of the federal government.

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are on a **** ton of stuff that doesn't make headlines

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

---

How many different ways can you split 9 votes, Archimedes?

On the other hand, this is from another opinion released today:

Quote:

---

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II.

---

It was actually a pretty significant question about patent review judges.

9-0 decisions in and of themselves aren't a problem. It's how you come to a unanimous decision that should raise eyebrows. For instance, it's rumored that in the Catholic Foster Care case last week that Roberts negotiated a narrow ruling in exchange for a 9-0 decision. It shouldn't have been a narrow ruling, it should have been a broad ruling that increased religious liberties of Americans against an increasingly harassing LGBT political lobby.

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

---

What he said was correct. 9-0 rulings are the most common outcome.

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

Still curious about this . . .

MASAXET said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

Still curious about this . . .

---

Why are you curious, counselor? Was the post not clear enough to understand? The court is putting out 9-0 rulings that would otherwise be 5-4 or 6-3 in order to discourage court packing. They could have eliminated court packing rhetoric before it started by taking the FISC court seriously, by listening to some voter fraud challenges, or by standing up to Elias and his battleground State tour of negotiated voter fraud settlements with unelected bureaucrats.

Did I stutter?

Bonfire1996 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

Still curious about this . . .

---

Why are you curious, counselor? Was the post not clear enough to understand? The court is putting out 9-0 rulings that would otherwise be 5-4 or 6-3 in order to discourage court packing. They could have eliminated court packing rhetoric before it started by taking the FISC court seriously, by listening to some voter fraud challenges, or by standing up to Elias and his battleground State tour of negotiated voter fraud settlements with unelected bureaucrats.

Did I stutter?

---

And you have been told 9-0 is the most common outcome of the courts. Put up some actual evidence besides your useless speculation.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

Still curious about this . . .

---

Why are you curious, counselor? Was the post not clear enough to understand? The court is putting out 9-0 rulings that would otherwise be 5-4 or 6-3 in order to discourage court packing. They could have eliminated court packing rhetoric before it started by taking the FISC court seriously, by listening to some voter fraud challenges, or by standing up to Elias and his battleground State tour of negotiated voter fraud settlements with unelected bureaucrats.

Did I stutter?

---

You did not stutter. What you didn't do was in any way produce a convincing argument that these decisions were not based on consistent ideological frameworks held by justices but were instead political considerations.

Saxsoon said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

Still curious about this . . .

---

Why are you curious, counselor? Was the post not clear enough to understand? The court is putting out 9-0 rulings that would otherwise be 5-4 or 6-3 in order to discourage court packing. They could have eliminated court packing rhetoric before it started by taking the FISC court seriously, by listening to some voter fraud challenges, or by standing up to Elias and his battleground State tour of negotiated voter fraud settlements with unelected bureaucrats.

Did I stutter?

---

And you have been told 9-0 is the most common outcome of the courts. Put up some actual evidence besides your useless speculation.

---

If you think Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan were really in the 9-0 majority catholic school ruling over LGBT rights, I don't know what to tell you.

Breyer and Kagan also voted in favor of the CO Baker in 2018 in that 7-2 decision. Sotomayer dissented in that case.

So of the 3 liberals, 2 have voted consistently in cases of religious free exercise. Not sure why Sotomayor saw facts differently this time but here we are. You still need to prove your case.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

---

How many different ways can you split 9 votes, Archimedes?

---

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

---

Good thing yours are so underwhelming to balance it out

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

---

How many different ways can you split 9 votes, Archimedes?

---

That's some good internetting right there.

Based on what I've seen for decades, I trust Clarence Thomas to consistently be an uncompromised beacon of originalist liberty. I will always chalk up Thomas hate as disappointment that the appropriate reading of our constitution did not fit that particular poster's view point.

If you're against something Thomas said, then you are likely wrong.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

I Have Spoken said:

---

Aren't unanimous decisions pretty common?

---

They are in fact the single most common outcome (about 1/3 of cases)

---

your math skills are whelming

---

Good thing yours are so underwhelming to balance it out

---

And thanks to you two, and Google, I know now more about whelm than anyone ever need know, but if ever it comes up in a trivia game, I'm ready.

BCG Disciple said:

---

Based on what I've seen for decades, I trust Clarence Thomas to consistently be an uncompromised beacon of originalist liberty. I will always chalk up Thomas hate as disappointment that the appropriate reading of our constitution did not fit that particular poster's view point.

If you're against something Thomas said, then you are likely wrong.

---

Thomas may be doing what he thinks is best to prevent packing.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

Still curious about this . . .

---

Why are you curious, counselor? Was the post not clear enough to understand? The court is putting out 9-0 rulings that would otherwise be 5-4 or 6-3 in order to discourage court packing. They could have eliminated court packing rhetoric before it started by taking the FISC court seriously, by listening to some voter fraud challenges, or by standing up to Elias and his battleground State tour of negotiated voter fraud settlements with unelected bureaucrats.

Did I stutter?

---

I'm curious because as others have mentioned you have not provided any analysis re: the multiple recent 9-0 cases being nothing but ideological and an obvious counter to court packing rhetoric. That's the analysis I've been waiting on, but I guess I shouldn't hold my breath

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

A 9-0 ruling seems pretty certain to be very non-ideological. They are deciding based on the law, not ideology, and they all agree on the law in the case.

MASAXET said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

These repeated 9-0 rulings show that these justices are ideological at heart. They are messaging Congress to not pack the court with these 9-0 rulings. They are not judging these cases and voting what they think, but rather finding out who's going to win and all voting that way. It's perverted and disgusting.

So, SCOTUS hates the threat of court packing. Fine. How did the threat of court packing metastasize?

FISA abuse
Voter malfeasance
Covid voting protocols

All things under the purview of SCOTUS. All things SCOTUS chose not to touch. But now you want to buck up and flex your muscle? Punks.

---

Please explain specifically which 9-0 ruling you know was only ideological and not based upon the law, and how you come to that conclusion.

---

This! LOL.