If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Just how far has the Supreme Court shifted to the right? Well here are some charts to confirm your suspicions   (motherjones.com) divider line 113
    More: Interesting, supreme courts, McCain-Feingold, Chief Justice John Roberts, UCLA School of Law, majority opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg  
•       •       •

6415 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-26 09:39:00 AM
www.theusconstitution.org
 
2012-06-26 09:44:08 AM
that article was like fantasy football...but for law geeks instead of sports fans.
 
2012-06-26 09:57:31 AM
Supreme Court justices serve "during good behavior," which means "for life" or until they choose to resign or retire, as long as they don't commit an impeachable offense (bad behavior).

The nine Supreme Court justices hold their offices "during good behavior" according to Article III, Section 1, of the US Constitution. This means that they may hold office for life; however they may be involuntarily removed from office by impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the same as the President.

Article III, Section 1

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Only one US Supreme Court Justice has been impeached, but was acquitted of all charges, and that was Samuel Chase (1741 - 1811) for allegedly letting his politics affect the quality of his decisions.


Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.
 
2012-06-26 09:57:57 AM
WTF. Neither Kagan or Sotomayor are liberals. Seriously Mother Jones? You should know better.
 
2012-06-26 10:01:29 AM

GAT_00: WTF. Neither Kagan or Sotomayor are liberals. Seriously Mother Jones? You should know better.


Thomas and Saclia aren't either.

/The more you know ....
 
2012-06-26 10:04:11 AM
I'm more interested in the broccoli.
 
2012-06-26 10:25:06 AM

Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.


Is there any chance of this actually happening?
 
2012-06-26 10:30:38 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.theusconstitution.org image 279x444]


I don't understand what that means. What is a chamber position? Sounds like how you sit on a toilet?
 
2012-06-26 10:31:44 AM

MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?


Nope.
 
2012-06-26 10:39:21 AM

RexTalionis: MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?

Nope.


I thought not. Anybody know of a country where the asshats haven't taken over yet? I wanna move there.
 
2012-06-26 10:39:50 AM

RexTalionis: MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?

Nope.


I dunno, give the GOP a big enough majority and I bet they'd impeach every justice that didn't promise to bow to every whim of CATO and the Koch brothers.
 
2012-06-26 10:41:05 AM

mrshowrules: I don't understand what that means. What is a chamber position? Sounds like how you sit on a toilet?


Methinks he's referring to the Chamber of Commerce, or as I think of them, Satan.
 
2012-06-26 10:50:06 AM

MorrisBird: Methinks he's referring to the Chamber of Commerce, or as I think of them, Satan.


Yes. That pic is clickable.
 
2012-06-26 10:55:05 AM
State's Rights, unless the states stand up to a corporation.
Strict Constructionist, unless the Constitution doesn't support your ideology.
Free Speech, but not Equal Speech.
The value of your opinion is proportional to the value of your wealth.

This is John Roberts' America.
 
2012-06-26 11:27:38 AM

RexTalionis: MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?

Nope.


I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.

Thomas is one that a case for impeachment could easily be made. His wife works for the Tea Party, he hid her income from that on his financial documents, and he failed to recuse himself when hearing cases that the tea party has their fingers in.
 
2012-06-26 11:41:57 AM

Zalan: I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.


Nope. Andrew Jackson was impeached prior to either - he was acquitted by one vote. And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.
 
2012-06-26 11:42:51 AM

RexTalionis: Zalan: I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.

Nope. Andrew Jackson was impeached prior to either - he was acquitted by one vote. And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.


Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson would have shot the Chief Justice if he had tried anything.
 
2012-06-26 11:46:08 AM

Mentat: RexTalionis: Zalan: I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.

Nope. Andrew Jackson was impeached prior to either - he was acquitted by one vote. And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.

Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson would have shot the Chief Justice if he had tried anything.


Right, right, my bad. Brain not thinking.
 
2012-06-26 12:04:23 PM
So now Charts are conspiring against the GOP too?
 
2012-06-26 12:08:10 PM
1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.
 
2012-06-26 12:12:10 PM
BUT OBAMA AND "WISE LATINA" SOTOMAYOR ARE RAGING HIPPIE COMMUNIST MUSLIMS FROM KENYA AND BOLIVIA AND WANT TO RAPE OUR CHILDREN WITH THEIR MIND CONTROL AGENDA 21 SOCIALIST SATANIC SMILING FASCIST DEATH COMPUTER OF DOOM CODE
 
2012-06-26 12:13:06 PM
New York times just had an article stating the Roberts.court has less reversals of precedent than the last few courts. Damn right wing newspaper.

It is quite amazing how liberals never actually argue against the legal analysis of the court, its just blind angry yelling.
 
2012-06-26 12:13:48 PM
Did anyone actually read Scalia's dissenting response? Seriously, the dude was spewing Fox News talking points. The really ironic part is he preaches at Obama that he's sullying the office of the President.
 
2012-06-26 12:14:21 PM

MilesTeg: 1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.


6/10
 
2012-06-26 12:15:34 PM

LucklessWonder: MilesTeg: 1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.

6/10


You gave him 6 points? No misspellings, no crying eagle, no subtlety...
 
2012-06-26 12:16:06 PM

MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?


Absolutely. Obama wins RE, Kennedy and RBG retire and are replaced with a slightly more left pair, leaving the court (slightly) 5-4 liberal. Meanwhile, the GOP claims the senate and keeps the house. They'll impeach all 5 if they think it'll help.
 
2012-06-26 12:19:03 PM

Mentat: State's Rights, unless the states stand up to a corporation.
Strict Constructionist, unless the Constitution doesn't support your ideology.
Free Speech, but not Equal Speech.
The value of your opinion is proportional to the value of your wealth.

This is John Roberts' America.


This. People like Scalia are conservatives who believe in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution...until it bucks up against their own interests. Then they'll just make up any BS to justify what decision they've chosen to come to. The commerce clause applies when we're talking about regulating pot (Gonzales v. Raich), but not when it comes to hanguns (Lopez) or healthcare. Because f*ck you, that's why.
 
2012-06-26 12:22:02 PM

Zalan: Thomas is one that a case for impeachment could easily be made. His wife works for the Tea Party, he hid her income from that on his financial documents, and he failed to recuse himself when hearing cases that the tea party has their fingers in.


That's pretty funny. Clearly, "easily" has some different meaning in your world.

How about Ginsburg's refusal to recuse in cases involving NOW, given her (continuing) Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series, sponsored by the NOW Legal Defense Fund? Impeachable?
 
2012-06-26 12:22:36 PM
Not only is its most conservative member (Clarence Thomas) nearly as conservative as the Burger court's most conservative member

Clarence Thomas is MUCH more conservative than Rehnquist ever was. And he always has been. This is a weird statement.

liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter were replaced by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan,

Sotomayor is already less liberal than Stevens, though I can't really compare Souter and Kagan.
 
2012-06-26 12:23:34 PM

The Green Manalishi: Roberts...originalist


And, that's how we know you don't know what you're talking about.
 
2012-06-26 12:23:41 PM

zarberg: Did anyone actually read Scalia's dissenting response? Seriously, the dude was spewing Fox News talking points. The really ironic part is he preaches at Obama that he's sullying the office of the President.


Dude needs to run for Senate. He was trying to make policy IN the dissent.
 
2012-06-26 12:24:47 PM

LucklessWonder: MilesTeg: 1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.

6/10


That's generous. I say 4/10.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:03 PM

bugontherug: LucklessWonder: MilesTeg: 1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.

6/10

That's generous. I say 4/10.


I should have gone 5/9 in true SCOTUS style
 
2012-06-26 12:29:03 PM

zarberg: Did anyone actually read Scalia's dissenting response? Seriously, the dude was spewing Fox News talking points. The really ironic part is he preaches at Obama that he's sullying the office of the President.


At oral argument, Scalia revealed that he believed the "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" provisions made it into the PPACA--they did not. He is literally forming his legal analysis on the basis of Fox talking points instead of statutory text and legal briefs. It is conclusively proved Scalia is an ignoramus and partisan hack.
 
2012-06-26 12:29:56 PM

LucklessWonder: bugontherug: LucklessWonder: MilesTeg: 1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.

6/10

That's generous. I say 4/10.

I should have gone 5/9 in true SCOTUS style


Heh.
 
2012-06-26 12:30:20 PM
At this point, it is beyond dispute that the Roberts Court exists to legitimize American fascism.
 
2012-06-26 12:31:50 PM
The simple answer is not far enough.
 
2012-06-26 12:37:55 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: At this point, it is beyond dispute that the Roberts Court exists to legitimize American fascism.


Tell that to Arizona.
 
2012-06-26 12:38:54 PM
The supreme court has always been a partisan institution, that's part of its function.
 
2012-06-26 12:40:10 PM

Scerpes: TofuTheAlmighty: At this point, it is beyond dispute that the Roberts Court exists to legitimize American fascism.

Tell that to Arizona.


Jan Brewer proclaimed victory for Arizona yesterday, saying that SB 1070's central "papers please" provision was upheld.
 
2012-06-26 12:40:23 PM

Garet Garrett: The Green Manalishi: Roberts...originalist

And, that's how we know you don't know what you're talking about.


My response was specifically about Scalia and his ilk. I realize the 2 cited cases were technically the Rehnquist court. Last I checked, Scalia is still there.

Thanks for playing.
 
2012-06-26 12:44:00 PM

bugontherug: Scerpes: TofuTheAlmighty: At this point, it is beyond dispute that the Roberts Court exists to legitimize American fascism.

Tell that to Arizona.

Jan Brewer proclaimed victory for Arizona yesterday, saying that SB 1070's central "papers please" provision was upheld.


The funny part is it wasn't upheld, it just wasn't ruled on. The court essentially wants to see it in action before they rule.
 
2012-06-26 12:47:26 PM

Mentat: RexTalionis: Zalan: I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.

Nope. Andrew Jackson was impeached prior to either - he was acquitted by one vote. And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.

Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson would have shot the Chief Justice if he had tried anything.


He damned sure would have made him duel for it. Heh.
 
2012-06-26 12:49:01 PM

LucklessWonder: I should have gone 5/9 in true SCOTUS style


Or, you could have gone 1/9 in true Clarence Thomas style.
 
2012-06-26 12:51:47 PM
Laughable at best. The only 2 swing voters on the court were appointed by Republicans. The left is the only party that votes party over the Constitution.
 
2012-06-26 01:04:28 PM

zarberg: bugontherug: Scerpes: TofuTheAlmighty: At this point, it is beyond dispute that the Roberts Court exists to legitimize American fascism.

Tell that to Arizona.

Jan Brewer proclaimed victory for Arizona yesterday, saying that SB 1070's central "papers please" provision was upheld.

The funny part is it wasn't upheld, it just wasn't ruled on. The court essentially wants to see it in action before they rule.


Yeah I know. Which just makes it even funnier.
 
2012-06-26 01:05:25 PM

lordaction: Laughable at best. The only 2 swing voters on the court were appointed by Republicans. The left is the only party that votes party over the Constitution.


t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-06-26 01:16:04 PM
Good. It's ashame that it isn't completely conservative.
 
2012-06-26 01:19:05 PM

Weaver95: that article was like fantasy football...but for law geeks instead of sports fans.


Yeah. I'm thinking it has a lot of subjective content.

How do you think a 1920s era Court would have ruled on issues of today?

They didn't give blacks or women equal rights. No way they would care about Arizona and immigration, or gay rights, or abortion rights, or limiting the power of certain branches. Hell, they wouldn't know what to do with the rise of regulation and executive power as it is today.

Though they might limit the interstate commerce clause more than today. And the right to take property by eminent domain.
 
2012-06-26 01:26:43 PM

MyRandomName: New York times just had an article stating the Roberts.court has less reversals of precedent than the last few courts. Damn right wing newspaper.

It is quite amazing how liberals never actually argue against the legal analysis of the court, its just blind angry yelling.




Yeah, it's both sad and hilarious when the goofball liberals use the number of 5/4 rulings as evidence of Conservative intransigence, never considering the fact that their 4 justices are voting the other side.

Also, totally not interested in statistics based on MotherJones interpretation of "liberal" and "conservative".
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report