The concept of blind justice is an effing joke. Our SCOTUS is tasked with ensuring the constitutionality of every issue that comes before it. How in the eff then, is EVERYTHING decided along party lines? Does this scare anyone else? The law is the law is the law. And I understand that there should occasionally be variance in some extreme cases, but in every single one? Does anyone have ANY faith in our SCOTUS going forward? Yes, I'm happy that it's staffed the way it is now, but it seems like nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever party holds the majority of justices.

You know why...

It's not possible. The strings are being pulled.

Yes. Democrats/Regressive Liberals scare me because they are not Lawful and do not believe in actual justice.

One side nominates justices who are scholars of the constitution.

The other side nominates "Wise latinas" and POC front hole owners who cant define what a woman is.

The final one for this term was 5-4

9-0 is far more common.

Sotomayor said both she and Clarence Thomas want to help people but disagree on the methods. CT says people should pulls themselves up by their bootstrap and Sotomayor says you have to help them reach their bootstraps.

Now, why those two different perspectives mean you cannot ever agree on the constitutionality of something is beyond me.

because we have 6 supreme court justices, okay 5.5 giving roberts a half, and 3 activists.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

because we have 6 supreme court justices, okay 5.5 giving roberts a half, and 3 activists.

---

More like 5 justices, 3 activists, and 1 coward.

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

The concept of blind justice is an effing joke. Our SCOTUS is tasked with ensuring the constitutionality of every issue that comes before it. How in the eff then, is EVERYTHING decided along party lines? Does this scare anyone else? The law is the law is the law. And I understand that there should occasionally be variance in some extreme cases, but in every single one? Does anyone have ANY faith in our SCOTUS going forward? Yes, I'm happy that it's staffed the way it is now, but it seems like nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever party holds the majority of justices.

---

They're not being decided along party lines, they're being decided on law vs feelings.

You should look at it as three Justices will always vote their "feels" regardless of the legal realities.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

How is it possible that EVERY SCOTUS decision is 6-3?

The concept of blind justice is an effing joke.
. . .

---

The simple answer is that the vast majority are not decided 6-3, and that this premise is false.

How about you give us a breakdown of the how the votes went for all the cases in the 2021 and 2022 terms, unless this is just a "it feels this way" post.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/06/24/despite-popular-misconception-supreme-court-9-0-rulings-arent-rare-ncaa/5334919001/

Quote:

---

. . .
But the reality is the opposite: 9-0 rulings are the most common types of Supreme Court rulings, year after year.
. . .

---

Judicial interpretation.

I thought there were really only 5, so I'm not sure about this site, but it was a quick search, not a deep one.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45129.html

Quote:

---

When exercising its power to review the constitutionality of governmental action, the Supreme Court has relied on certain "methods" or "modes" of interpretationthat is, ways of figuring out a particular meaning of a provision within the Constitution. This report broadly describes the most common modes of constitutional interpretation; discusses examples of Supreme Court decisions that demonstrate the application of these methods; and provides a general overview of the various arguments in support of, and in opposition to, the use of such methods of constitutional interpretation.

Textualism. Textualism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document. Textualism usually emphasizes how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appear. Textualists usually believe there is an objective meaning of the text, and they do not typically inquire into questions regarding the intent of the drafters, adopters, or ratifiers of the Constitution and its amendments when deriving meaning from the text.

Original Meaning. Whereas textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation focus solely on the text of the document, originalist approaches consider the meaning of the Constitution as understood by at least some segment of the populace at the time of the Founding. Originalists generally agree that the Constitution's text had an "objectively identifiable" or public meaning at the time of the Founding that has not changed over time, and the task of judges and Justices (and other responsible interpreters) is to construct this original meaning.

Judicial Precedent. The most commonly cited source of constitutional meaning is the Supreme Court's prior decisions on questions of constitutional law. For most, if not all Justices, judicial precedent provides possible principles, rules, or standards to govern judicial decisions in future cases with arguably similar facts.

Pragmatism. Pragmatist approaches often involve the Court weighing or balancing the probable practical consequences of one interpretation of the Constitution against other interpretations. One flavor of pragmatism weighs the future costs and benefits of an interpretation to society or the political branches, selecting the interpretation that may lead to the perceived best outcome. Under another type of pragmatist approach, a court might consider the extent to which the judiciary could play a constructive role in deciding a question of constitutional law.

Moral Reasoning. This approach argues that certain moral concepts or ideals underlie some terms in the text of the Constitution (e.g., "equal protection" or "due process of law"), and that these concepts should inform judges' interpretations of the Constitution.

National Identity (or "Ethos"). Judicial reasoning occasionally relies on the concept of a "national ethos," which draws upon the distinct character and values of the American national identity and the nation's institutions in order to elaborate on the Constitution's meaning.

Structuralism. Another mode of constitutional interpretation draws inferences from the design of the Constitution: the relationships among the three branches of the federal government (commonly called separation of powers); the relationship between the federal and state governments (known as federalism); and the relationship between the government and the people.

Historical Practices. Prior decisions of the political branches, particularly their long-established, historical practices, are an important source of constitutional meaning. Courts have viewed historical practices as a source of the Constitution's meaning in cases involving questions about the separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights, particularly when the text provides no clear answer.

---

powerbelly said:

---

9-0 is far more common.

---

I'm really hoping this is the case and the only ones that anyone ever hears about are the hairy, political ones. So is this true? Do most turn out 9-0?

Malibu2 said:

---

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

---

So breakdown the central government to enumerated powers. Reinvigorate state sovereignty . Bring representation closer to the people. The way to save the United States is to return to the original model.

In her kind words about Clarence Thomas yesterday, the wise latina literally admitted and almost bragged about being an activist judge. I don't even think they factor the Constitution in at all with many of these rulings...or at the very least it takes a distant backseat.

Okay, this site gives the 5 methods I'm used to seeing.

https://media.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/jb3163/methods.html

Quote:

---

How is it possible that EVERY SCOTUS decision is 6-3?

---

uh, they aren't.

Ciboag96 said:

---

Sotomayor said both she and Clarence Thomas want to help people but disagree on the methods. CT says people should pulls themselves up by their bootstrap and Sotomayor says you have to help them reach their bootstraps.

Now, why those two different perspectives mean you cannot ever agree on the constitutionality of something is beyond me.

---

That's the problem with Sotamayor and her ilk. Their job is not to "help people", its to interpret the constitution and how it applies to cases.

Quote:

---

More like 5 justices, 3 activists, and 1 coward.

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

---

If the majority would do a better job when they have the Presidency, House, and Senate...then they wouldn't have to whine about the 'minority' controlling things.

When the objective of the majority party is the pursuit of raw power, instead of governing within the Constitution...then yes they are going to be disgruntled when the judicial branch pulls them back.

They're not all 6-3.

The ones that are not 6-3 find some of the conservatives voting with the liberals.

But the liberals vote as a bloc nearly 100% of the time.

Why?

They are purely results oriented (the rule of man) as opposed to careful analysis of the law itself (the rule of law).

Honestly, I've always contended that they sit in the back room and discuss how they're going to vote. And will sometimes vote a certain way to make things look like it was a closer decision than it really was. Especially when you see someone voting different than their party line, those "surprise votes."

It obviously depends on the term, but 9-0 is consistently the most common. The more interesting thing to track is when the "liberal" justices vote apart. That is much rarer.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

The law is the law is the law.

---

unless you're a progressive activist judge chosen to legislate from the bench instead of interpret the constitution.

Faustus said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

How is it possible that EVERY SCOTUS decision is 6-3?

The concept of blind justice is an effing joke.
. . .

---

The simple answer is that the vast majority are not decided 6-3, and that this premise is false.

How about you give us a breakdown of the how the votes went for all the cases in the 2021 and 2022 terms, unless this is just a "it feels this way" post.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/06/24/despite-popular-misconception-supreme-court-9-0-rulings-arent-rare-ncaa/5334919001/

Quote:

---

. . .
But the reality is the opposite: 9-0 rulings are the most common types of Supreme Court rulings, year after year.
. . .

---

---

Alright smartass, yes, this is definitely an "it feels this way" post, but the point still remains on all of the big political, news worthy cases that come out 6-3. How is it possible that not a single judge ever breaks rank either way on a big one? Has it always been this way? Before this country got ridiculously political, were big SCOTUS cases still being decided strictly along party lines?

Maybe because 6 justices vote based on facts and logic and the other 3 vote based on feels.

Malibu2 said:

---

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

---

I'm sorry y'all liberals hate the U.S. and the Constitution.

There is the constitution- some believe in following it and some believe in modifying it to fit their politics

Then there are special categories:
Justice Roberts makes some decisions that have zero reasoning which leaves many to wonder why AND NOW
Justice Roberts believes in filling in for Ginsburg when he thinks he should

What!? Blind justice has political bias? Whatever side your on, it's time we look at supreme court just like out other branches since they are not above politics.

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

They're not all 6-3.

The ones that are not 6-3 find some of the conservatives voting with the liberals.

But the liberals vote as a bloc nearly 100% of the time.

Why?

They are purely results oriented (the rule of man) as opposed to careful analysis of the law itself (the rule of law).

---

I would like to see this analysis. It would show the liberal block being constant and everyone else having their own voice. Sure Thomas and Alito vote very similar but not 100% guaranteed like the liberal wing.

Malibu2 said:

---

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

---

There seems to be some confluence of desires, if what you say is true. Neither side wants to be ruled by the other, let's agree to split up.

The difference is Cali and NY want to rule the entire country. Texas and Alabama want to rule themselves, like the Constitution says. Constitutionalists don't want to rule the majority or the minority.

Gigem314 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

---

If the majority would do a better job when they have the Presidency, House, and Senate...then they wouldn't have to whine about the 'minority' controlling things.

When the objective of the majority party is the pursuit of raw power, instead of governing within the Constitution...then yes they are going to be disgruntled when the judicial branch pulls them back.

---

I typed a longer post but I would have derailed the OP, so staying on topic... I agree, the majority(and minority when they are in power) should do a good job effectively governing. I'll go out on an extreme limb here as being pro "good governance". What McConnel did to get these nominees through was a clear and unambiguous example of the minority party exercising raw political power to control the judiciary. Your side pulled it off and you now have the tiger by the tail.

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Yes, a democratic deficit is a bad thing that for this country as a going concern. The idea that the minority can effectively and permanently control the Executive, 1/2 of the Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will obviously create a disgruntled majority that no longer wishes to be governed by the minority. For those wishing for the breakup of the United States, this is the way.

---

I'm sorry y'all liberals hate the U.S. and the Constitution.

---

Do you sincerely believe that I hate the United States and the Constitution?