SCOTUS flawed?

[Richard Simmons]

I've always wondered about the SCOTUS. If they are supposed to render decisions based on their interpretation of the law then why do we get so many decisions that are decided by one vote? Usually all the liberal judges vote as a block as do the conservatives.

Seems like there would be a lot more decisions where they all agree or only one or two disagree if they are simply going by the law.

In addition we now have Democrats saying they shouldn't vote to replace Kennedy during an election year because Republicans would allow Obama to do it in 2016. Kind of a cluster. That being said if this is how it's gonna work then I hope President Trump gets to replace a bunch of them.

[LAGC]

Actually, if you look at the decisions overall, only about 20% of them end up being a 5-4 split.

There actually tend to be a lot more 9-0 unanimous decisions where the law is pretty clear:



The SCOTUS gets it right most of the time. It's only the contentious cases (the ones that tend to have the most political implications) that there tends to be such disagreement -- and, of course, those are the ones we tend to really hear most about from the media, since they usually break down along party lines.

[alismith]

I've always wondered about the SCOTUS. If they are supposed to render decisions based on their interpretation of the law then why do we get so many decisions that are decided by one vote? Usually all the liberal judges vote as a block as do the conservatives.

Seems like there would be a lot more decisions where they all agree or only one or two disagree if they are simply going by the law.

In addition we now have Democrats saying they shouldn't vote to replace Kennedy during an election year because Republicans would allow Obama to do it in 2016. Kind of a cluster. That being said if this is how it's gonna work then I hope President Trump gets to replace a bunch of them.

Politics.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

You have 4 that follow the Constitution pretty religiously, one that puts his finger up in the wind, and 4 that hate the Constitution and rewrite it as much as they can every chance they get. Seriously when you have 4 judges that still don't accept the 2nd amendment is an individual right, it's clear to see they don't give a shit about the oath they took, like most Democrats/Communists

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I've always wondered about the SCOTUS. If they are supposed to render decisions based on their interpretation of the law then why do we get so many decisions that are decided by one vote? Usually all the liberal judges vote as a block as do the conservatives.

Seems like there would be a lot more decisions where they all agree or only one or two disagree if they are simply going by the law.

In addition we now have Democrats saying they shouldn't vote to replace Kennedy during an election year because Republicans would allow Obama to do it in 2016. Kind of a cluster. That being said if this is how it's gonna work then I hope President Trump gets to replace a bunch of them.

I was quite surprised when Mcconnel played hard ball. Very rare. F the communist party, full speed ahead. The only doubts I have is some of the turncoats masquerading as R's gumming up the works.

[LAGC]

The only doubts I have is some of the turncoats masquerading as R's gumming up the works.

McCain could be a wildcard. He's been absent from the Senate for several months now due to his medical condition. But just the fact that he refuses to retire and let Arizona Governor Ducey appoint a conservative replacement suggests he may be holding out for one last "fuck you" against Trump just like he did in stopping Obamacare from getting deep-sixed with his tie-breaking vote.

With the Republicans losing that "safe seat" in Alabama thanks to Roy Moore getting #MeToo'd, they now only have a a razor-thin 51-49 edge in the Senate right now. All it would take is two defections (two, because with just one, you still have Pence as the tie-breaker) on the Republican side to scuttle any Trump SCOTUS pick.

[tank_monkey]

When it really matters, I've noticed that the LIBERAL WING of SCOTUS is deeply flawed in their reasoning (look at their dissent at ANY pro gun decision). They're block voting left wing douchbags. Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, etc. are all liberal hacks. Liberals can't be trusted. All the activist liberal judges have proven that to be true. What we need are a majority of strict constitutionalists. Honest judges who can render a decision based on the law and facts, even if it goes against what they personally believe.

[5.56NATO]

The case that allowed scrotus to determine what was constitutional and what was not was a huge power grab, allowing them to legislate from the bench. And what branch of government is it that has the constitutional authority to legislate? I bet a wise latina knows, but she's not going to give back what her predecessors have stolen.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

McCain could be a wildcard. He's been absent from the Senate for several months now due to his medical condition. But just the fact that he refuses to retire and let Arizona Governor Ducey appoint a conservative replacement suggests he may be holding out for one last "fuck you" against Trump just like he did in stopping Obamacare from getting deep-sixed with his tie-breaking vote.

With the Republicans losing that "safe seat" in Alabama thanks to Roy Moore getting #MeToo'd, they now only have a a razor-thin 51-49 edge in the Senate right now. All it would take is two defections (two, because with just one, you still have Pence as the tie-breaker) on the Republican side to scuttle any Trump SCOTUS pick.

Yep. Agree with your assessment, but the gov. will appoint his wife, who's less "conservative" than McCain the turncoat is. Only other thing the R's have is there are several Dems in red states that would get massacred voting against a pro Constitutional Pick.

[Krupski]

Actually, if you look at the decisions overall, only about 20% of them end up being a 5-4 split.

There actually tend to be a lot more 9-0 unanimous decisions where the law is pretty clear:

The SCOTUS gets it right most of the time. It's only the contentious cases (the ones that tend to have the most political implications) that there tends to be such disagreement -- and, of course, those are the ones we tend to really hear most about from the media, since they usually break down along party lines.

Then why can't they figure out what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means. Seems "pretty clear" to me.......