(06-27-2015 05:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: There is still a chance Obama ends up with the opportunity to historically impact the makings of the Supreme Court, but barring a catastrophic illness, the chances are pretty good the next president is the one who is going to be able to replace some folks ready to retire (Ginsberg, Kennedy and possibly Scalia). So far all Obama has done is replace some liberal justices with liberal justices.
I posted a link in another thread overnight that reviewed all of the major SC cases of this year. It's disturbing to me to see the four liberal justices vote together on every single issue. I didn't realize that Kennedy, Thomas and Roberts had moved to the left on a few issues this year (more so Kennedy than the others). I applaud them for their ability to go against the flow on specific issues, and I wish Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would break from the pack and side with the conservative judges on an isolated topic or two if they feel strongly about that argument.
Maybe that happens if one more conservative justice is replaced with a moderate or liberal justice, but the track record certainly isn't looking that way currently.
This term, RBG and Breyer opposed the administration the most, while Thomas and Kennedy sided with the admin the most.
Pretty interesting fact, and shows that perhaps the admin wasn't advocating for an overall very liberal agenda in the courts.
On the case where I worked on an amicus brief, Comptroller v. Wynne, 575 US ___ (2015), Alito wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Breyer, with Scalia, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Kagan dissenting. It was a state tax case where we (and Wynne) basically argued the reverse of the first Obamacare defense and attacked the tax on commerce clause grounds rather than under the taxing power, so there probably wasn't any pro or anti administration position. The majority bought our argument, and I doubt we would have won going under the tax power. But that's a very interesting division of opinion among the court.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2015 10:57 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(06-30-2015 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: On the case where I worked on an amicus brief, Comptroller v. Wynne, 575 US ___ (2015), Alito wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Breyer, with Scalia, Ginsberg, Thomas, and Kagan dissenting. It was a state tax case where we (and Wynne) basically argued the reverse of the first Obamacare defense and attacked the tax on commerce clause grounds rather than under the taxing power, so there probably wasn't any pro or anti administration position. The majority bought our argument, and I doubt we would have won going under the tax power. But that's a very interesting division of opinion among the court.
Occassionally you will see Scalia, Thomas and Breyer together against most of the left and middle of the court.
(06-30-2015 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: On the case where I worked on an amicus brief, Comptroller v. Wynne, 575 US ___ (2015), Alito wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Breyer, with Scalia, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Kagan dissenting. It was a state tax case where we (and Wynne) basically argued the reverse of the first Obamacare defense and attacked the tax on commerce clause grounds rather than under the taxing power, so there probably wasn't any pro or anti administration position. The majority bought our argument, and I doubt we would have won going under the tax power. But that's a very interesting division of opinion among the court.
To clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest that there was necessarily a pro versus anti-administration stance. I was actually trying to do the opposite, and show that those who you would expect would favor the admin have been shown to not do that. That the justices are not be as partisan as some like to think, and are generally making decisions based upon their own legal opinions, and not which political party it benefits.
(06-27-2015 05:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: There is still a chance Obama ends up with the opportunity to historically impact the makings of the Supreme Court, but barring a catastrophic illness, the chances are pretty good the next president is the one who is going to be able to replace some folks ready to retire (Ginsberg, Kennedy and possibly Scalia). So far all Obama has done is replace some liberal justices with liberal justices.
I posted a link in another thread overnight that reviewed all of the major SC cases of this year. It's disturbing to me to see the four liberal justices vote together on every single issue. I didn't realize that Kennedy, Thomas and Roberts had moved to the left on a few issues this year (more so Kennedy than the others). I applaud them for their ability to go against the flow on specific issues, and I wish Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would break from the pack and side with the conservative judges on an isolated topic or two if they feel strongly about that argument.
Maybe that happens if one more conservative justice is replaced with a moderate or liberal justice, but the track record certainly isn't looking that way currently.
This term, RBG and Breyer opposed the administration the most, while Thomas and Kennedy sided with the admin the most.
Pretty interesting fact, and shows that perhaps the admin wasn't advocating for an overall very liberal agenda in the courts.
I find it surprising that Thomas is one of the more administration-leaning ones this year. With all the vitriol funneled toward the court, it's hard to imagine people taking a look at the facts of the matter, especially that the Obama administration has for the most part sided for a moderate judiciary practice.
/
Jindal: Just get rid of the Supreme Court
