(02-04-2022 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 09:59 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  This is a textbook example of begging the question. No actual evidence of groupthink presented, beyond going three-quarters the way around a circular argument. If they all reason things the same way then how do you explain split decisions (and no, if you read up on some of the recent cases it's not as simple as Sotomayor against the rest of them)?

They all reason things basically the same way. They may come up with different answers because they come to the bench with different prejudices, but they don't bring different analytical approaches, because they were all taught the same approach in law school. And for at least the legal career portions of their lives, they haven't had widely different life experiences. So you get results like Roberts deciding that the Obamacare mandate was not interstate commerce, but was a permissible tax, despite the characterization as a tax being denied by supporters at every point in the legislative history.

What they do, rather than straightforward legal analysis, is figure out what answer they want, then try to figure out the bases upon which that answer can be supported legally, then figure out which supporting argument is least likely to lead them into a trap later.

As far as Sotomayor, she could be viewed as the deciding vote (along with any of the other 4 joining) in the one case where I had any involvement before the court (minor role in amicus brief). Our position would probably be described as the conservative, pro-individual rights one, but decision was 5 (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor) to 4 (Ginsburg, Kagan, Scalia, Thomas). Really weird alignment.