Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    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  
•       •       •

6418 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:00 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-26 01:38:05 PM  

Mentat: The value of your opinion Your right to exist is proportional to the value of your wealth.


Clarified that FY
 
2012-06-26 01:40:45 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.


lol

No, seriously, I literally lol'd
 
2012-06-26 01:45:45 PM  

Zalan: 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.


Impeachment is a political process. A majority of the House are needed to even bring a case to trial in the Senate, and that's certainly not going to happen as long as there's a Republican majority in that chamber (or, as a practical matter, ever).
 
2012-06-26 01:55:27 PM  

RolandGunner: 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.


Just out of curiosity, what does "their 4 justices are voting the other side" say to you?
 
2012-06-26 02:11:08 PM  
Somebody should tell the author that the current SCOTUS yesterday just opened the floodgates for Illegal Aliens.

Last time I checked....the only ones who really want Amnesty are the Hispanic Racist groups and their White Guilt Lib sycophants....Even moderate libs are against Amnesty...and the latest SCOTUS decision

Heck, with some libs....unless SCOTUS legalizes Child Rape...they will always be labeled as "Right wing"
 
2012-06-26 02:13:28 PM  

DancingElkCondor: Somebody should tell the author that the current SCOTUS yesterday just opened the floodgates for Illegal Aliens.

Last time I checked....the only ones who really want Amnesty are the Hispanic Racist groups and their White Guilt Lib sycophants....Even moderate libs are against Amnesty...and the latest SCOTUS decision

Heck, with some libs....unless SCOTUS legalizes Child Rape...they will always be labeled as "Right wing"


Hmmm.....Account created: 2012-06-07 01:45:36

*favorited!*
 
2012-06-26 02:28:44 PM  

DancingElkCondor: Somebody should tell the author that the current SCOTUS yesterday just opened the floodgates for Illegal Aliens.

Last time I checked....the only ones who really want Amnesty are the Hispanic Racist groups and their White Guilt Lib sycophants....Even moderate libs are against Amnesty...and the latest SCOTUS decision

Heck, with some libs....unless SCOTUS legalizes Child Rape...they will always be labeled as "Right wing"


last time I checked the GOP was the more pro-rape party.
 
2012-06-26 02:44:30 PM  

DarwiOdrade: RolandGunner: 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.

Just out of curiosity, what does "their 4 justices are voting the other side" say to you?


I think his point was that for the past 20+ years most politically hot issues have been decided 4 to 4 with one swing vote. Same 4 on both sides regardless of the issue. To then say, that the 4 on one side are being partisan when the other 4 always vote opposite are not partisan would be disingenuous.

I think that is his point.
 
2012-06-26 02:45:56 PM  

DarwiOdrade: RolandGunner: 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.

Just out of curiosity, what does "their 4 justices are voting the other side" say to you?


It says that different justices have different ideas and two primary ideologies are dominant. If justices didn't have guiding and competing philosophies then you'd only ever need one... or none, actually.
 
2012-06-26 02:46:48 PM  

I_C_Weener: DarwiOdrade: RolandGunner: 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.

Just out of curiosity, what does "their 4 justices are voting the other side" say to you?

I think his point was that for the past 20+ years most politically hot issues have been decided 4 to 4 with one swing vote. Same 4 on both sides regardless of the issue. To then say, that the 4 on one side are being partisan when the other 4 always vote opposite are not partisan would be disingenuous.

I think that is his point.



You are correct.
 
2012-06-26 02:47:09 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.


Jackson was the only president ever censured by the Senate. The whig controlled senate did it in 1834 because Jackson removing funds from the Bank of the United States. In 1837 a now democratic controlled senate expunged the censure.
 
2012-06-26 02:48:23 PM  

RolandGunner: DarwiOdrade: RolandGunner: 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.

Just out of curiosity, what does "their 4 justices are voting the other side" say to you?

It says that different justices have different ideas and two primary ideologies are dominant. If justices didn't have guiding and competing philosophies then you'd only ever need one... or none, actually.


Statistically, you can show who the most partisan justices are. I suspect they are the Conservative ones.
 
2012-06-26 02:59:37 PM  
Ginsburg is a hair from center/left? That is downright maniacal.
 
2012-06-26 03:06:21 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.


If he were a Democrat the Republicans would have tried to impeach long ago...
 
2012-06-26 03:17:10 PM  

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


Just because Thomas and Scalia (at least) are openly accepting bribes doesn't mean they're impartial.
 
2012-06-26 03:18:25 PM  

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

Just because Thomas and Scalia (at least) are openly accepting bribes doesn't mean they're [not] impartial.


/ftfm
 
2012-06-26 03:27:18 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.


Welcome to fark?
 
2012-06-26 03:28:48 PM  

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

Just because Thomas and Scalia (at least) are openly accepting bribes doesn't mean they're [not] impartial.

/ftfm


i.qkme.me
 
2012-06-26 03:38:39 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.


Pull down your skirt, your ignorance is showing.
 
2012-06-26 03:41:46 PM  

cendojr: 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.


eh, the stars would have to align just right for that to happen, and that's far from certain. Y'know what I think is going to happen sometime in Obama's second term??

1. Justice Thomas experiences multiple diabetic comas. While sitting on the bench, hearing cases. This goes on for months before anyone notices.

2. Eventually he's compelled to resign for health reasons.

3. Obama nominates a wishy-washy moderate to take his place.

4. Ignoring the fact that the court's most dramatic ideological shift in history happened when Thomas, the most conservative justice ever, replaced Thurgood Marshall, the most liberal justice ever, a great hue and cry arises among conservative pundits and Republican Senators because how dare Obama propose shifting the SC so far leftward.
 
2012-06-26 03:44:59 PM  

RexTalionis: And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.


You sure he wasn't tossed out?

Technically?
 
2012-06-26 03:45:49 PM  
Never mind, now I feel like a dolt for typing that...
 
2012-06-26 04:02:27 PM  

mrshowrules: Statistically, you can show who the most partisan justices are. I suspect they are the Conservative ones.



Well, this is statistics we're talking about here. I'm sure you could find exactly what you suspected you'd find if you wanted to.
 
2012-06-26 04:07:46 PM  

phaseolus: RexTalionis: And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.

You sure he wasn't tossed out?

Technically?


He wasn't. He resigned after the House Judiciary Committee voted for the articles of impeachment, but before the articles of impeachment was passed by the entire House. Thus, he is, by that measure, not impeached.
 
2012-06-26 04:56:50 PM  
If by 'shift to the right' you mean 'less likely to magically find something in the Constitution that has never been there no matter how much liberals spin it' then yes.
 
2012-06-26 05:13:23 PM  
Protip: Law professors aren't known for being ideologically moderate. The token conservative at my school was kept in the basement.
 
2012-06-26 05:23:01 PM  
Wait, you people are taking seriously a bunch of graphs that purport to quantify "liberal" and "conservative"?
 
2012-06-26 05:33:56 PM  

Cataholic: Protip: Law professors aren't known for being ideologically moderate. The token conservative at my school was kept in the basement.


That's because those damn libs value that book-learnin and stuff.

But in all seriousness, one of the two smartest profs at my law school is hardcore conservative. Clerked for Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist I think. The other guy on his level clerked for Posner, and he's liberal as all hell.

Both teach con law.

So YMMV.
 
2012-06-26 05:40:11 PM  

randomjsa: If by 'shift to the right' you mean 'less likely to magically find something in the Constitution that has never been there no matter how much liberals spin it' then yes.


Actually that's true. The SCOTUS ruled that corporations are like people and have a right to free speech and that that free speech can be backed by unlimited amounts of funding.

Okay, so then they must agree that anyone is free to raise the same amount of money to counter said speech with their own brand of free speech.

Problem is, that means freedom of speech is now bought and paid for and goes to the highest bidder.

So ya, they found this in the First Amendment. Way to go Sam.
If you think Citizens United is looking out for the average Joe's best interest, then you are really naive.
They have the SCOTUS in their pocket now and are the prime example of what you Conservatives like to call "Activist Judges".
 
2012-06-26 06:03:52 PM  

RexTalionis: phaseolus: RexTalionis: And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.

You sure he wasn't tossed out?

Technically?

He wasn't. He resigned after the House Judiciary Committee voted for the articles of impeachment, but before the articles of impeachment was passed by the entire House. Thus, he is, by that measure, not impeached.



I know. I was just flogging a dead running gag.
 
2012-06-26 06:14:33 PM  

MrBallou: 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.


Antarctica is nice about part of the time it isn't completely dark.
 
2012-06-26 06:15:24 PM  
Disgusting.

So much for an enlightened 21st century.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:59 PM  

Zalan: 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.


Kagan or Sotomayor ?
 
2012-06-26 06:24:27 PM  

sinschild: or allegedly letting his politics affect the quality of his decisions.


I suspect the present SCOTUS may have a few of those on the bench.
 
2012-06-26 06:25:55 PM  

The Green Manalishi: 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.


It also, apparently, applied when farmers were growing food for personal consumption...That's the one that the Obama administration kept going back to in their defense of the HC Law.
 
2012-06-26 06:25:57 PM  

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

Kagan or Sotomayor ?


Actually, they're the two they should leave on the bench. We could use a good starting over otherwise.
 
2012-06-26 06:28:28 PM  

whidbey: Actually, they're the two they should leave on the bench. We could use a good starting over otherwise.


Alito and Scalia
 
2012-06-26 06:31:19 PM  

Zalan: 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.



That's one option.
 
2012-06-26 06:34:59 PM  

technicolor-misfit: Zalan: 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.


That's one option.


buelahman.files.wordpress.com

Here's another.
 
2012-06-26 06:37:27 PM  
Good, I think the SCOTUS should take a conservative position on issues that raise to their level. The biggest reason why I won't be voting for Obama is so that we keep the Supreme Court conservative.
 
2012-06-26 06:45:35 PM  
Your supreme court sucks. Eff your bought off 'justices'. I'm getting sick of watching your populace be so damn stupid that they vote against their own interests.

If I can be deadly serious for a minute: it is not possible to vote republican without being extremely stupid or immoral.
 
2012-06-26 06:47:37 PM  

parkthebus: Good, I think the SCOTUS should take a conservative position on issues that raise to their level. The biggest reason why I won't be voting for Obama is so that we keep the Supreme Court conservative.


And with that, you'll never have to spend any time with me under any circumstances. You win! Idiot.
 
2012-06-26 06:53:35 PM  

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

Kagan or Sotomayor ?

Actually, they're the two they should leave on the bench. We could use a good starting over otherwise.


Oh, you mean the affirmative action judges? The wise latina and the ugly dyke? Those two are impartial?

I say keep Kennedy, Scalia and Ginsburg. Choose the replacement 5 via random drawing from a pool of all currently serving federal judges who have not had an ethics complaint filed against them in the past 5 years.

Why do we let politically motivated muppets choose replacement supreme court judges again?

I think any judge or reporter who claims a political preference should lose their job, and in a perfect world, their head.

I remember watching a newscast back in the late 70's and the reporter answered "Do you have an opinion on..." and he answered "Yes I do. Now moving on to our story..."
 
2012-06-26 06:56:56 PM  

inclemency: it is not possible to vote republican without being extremely stupid or immoral.


Indeed. Why the middle class conservatives keep voting that way is beyond me. They are not doing themselves any favors.
 
2012-06-26 06:57:04 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.


I would argue with your point, but every story I read asks if any of the conservative justices will have the courage to vote for the affordable health care act.

The next article I read which wonders if any liberal justices will have the courage to vote against it, will be the first one.
 
2012-06-26 06:58:21 PM  

parkthebus: I won't be voting for Obama is so that we keep the Supreme Court conservative.


So, why is it so important to you to have a Conservative SCOTUS?
 
2012-06-26 07:02:11 PM  

sinschild: Why do we let politically motivated muppets choose replacement supreme court judges again?


So when the law is actually applied with balance, you cry "activist judges" but when things go your way it's all good.
The SCOTUS is only supposed to apply the Law, not make up shiyat as they go along.
This is Alito and Scalia's MO and they should go.
 
2012-06-26 07:17:22 PM  

smeegle: sinschild: Why do we let politically motivated muppets choose replacement supreme court judges again?

So when the law is actually applied with balance, you cry "activist judges" but when things go your way it's all good.
The SCOTUS is only supposed to apply the Law, not make up shiyat as they go along.
This is Alito and Scalia's MO and they should go.


I don't think the law should be applied with "balance" or "compassion" or any such silliness. The law should be applied as written with zero room for discretion. As long as there is room for discretion there will always be favoritism and abuse of the authority that the law provides.
 
2012-06-26 07:20:09 PM  

sinschild: The law should be applied as written with zero room for discretion.


On that we can agree. Balance was a poor choice of word. Interpret the law.

The ruling in favor of Citizens United IMHO, was not an interpretation of the law, it was a bending of the law.
 
2012-06-26 07:21:08 PM  

smeegle: parkthebus: I won't be voting for Obama is so that we keep the Supreme Court conservative.

So, why is it so important to you to have a Conservative SCOTUS?



Crickets
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report