Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A millennial President will come along and upend the boomer legacy and we’ll have 13.

Court packing is a really terrible idea. If Dems do it to get to 13 when they have the power, the Republicans will just up it next time they can.

Maybe. I think they recognize the demographics are against him. Hence they are willing to dance with the devil currently in order to remake the judiciary with conservatives holding life appointments. From where I sit, this seems to be the best long-term play they have, but it can be overridden in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A millennial President will come along and upend the boomer legacy and we’ll have 13.

Court packing is a really terrible idea. If Dems do it to get to 13 when they have the power, the Republicans will just up it next time they can.

Maybe. I think they recognize the demographics are against him. Hence they are willing to dance with the devil currently in order to remake the judiciary with conservatives holding life appointments. From where I sit, this seems to be the best long-term play they have, but it can be overridden in time.

^ against them

[Anonymous]

So what happens if she does before the DACA decision? 5 to 3 is not gonna be pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what happens if she does before the DACA decision? 5 to 3 is not gonna be pretty.

*dies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what happens if she does before the DACA decision? 5 to 3 is not gonna be pretty.

*dies

.

Dunno. No more DACA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what happens if she does before the DACA decision? 5 to 3 is not gonna be pretty.

Why would 5 to 3 be any different than 5 to 4?

[Anonymous]

Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

To be clear, the decision is still the law of the land, it just isn’t viewed as a good jurisprudence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

Hahaha it's only bad if it's conservative, lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

To be clear, the decision is still the law of the land, it just isn’t viewed as a good jurisprudence.

So no 5-4 decision is viewed as "good jurisprudence"? That's a pretty ridiculous statement. And there is no "*", formal or informal, that accompanies a citation to a 5-4 decision. At most there is a recognition that there is a greater chance that future decisions will narrow, redefine, or in fairly unusual circumstances overrule the decision.

What do you consider a "balanced judiciary"? Is it one where there are 5 people nominated from one party and 4 the other? Something else? It sort of seems like "good jurisprudence" and "balanced judiciary" means specific decisions and broader courts that you tend to agree with.

[Anonymous]

Going to Hopkins isnt good and she wont be leaving anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

Did someone from a third tier law school tell you this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

To be clear, the decision is still the law of the land, it just isn’t viewed as a good jurisprudence.

Why not? Chief Justice Roberts said that there are no Republican or Democratic judges. So it really is just five jurists who reasonably see things one way, and four who reasonably see things the other way. They are just umpires. And sometimes a pitch is a close call. If you disagree, then you’ll have to assert that politics comes into play, contrary to Roberts’ view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

To be clear, the decision is still the law of the land, it just isn’t viewed as a good jurisprudence.

Why not? Chief Justice Roberts said that there are no Republican or Democratic judges. So it really is just five jurists who reasonably see things one way, and four who reasonably see things the other way. They are just umpires. And sometimes a pitch is a close call. If you disagree, then you’ll have to assert that politics comes into play, contrary to Roberts’ view.

This is hardly just CJ Roberts's view. What is often called politics is really just a difference in philosophy, view point and legal theory.

It is easy to say the side you disagree with is playing politics, while your side is being "true" to the law. But I assure you that people on the other side (whichever that is) believe that you are playing politics. In a 5-4 decision on "party" lines, it is kind of hard to say one side is playing politics while the other isn't, because that determination will come down to which side you believe was right -- something very hard to separate from your political views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because traditionally we have a balance judiciary and the vote count signals whether you have a true precedent, or what is essentially a political or philosophical difference. In the rare times that we have an unbalanced judiciary, even votes that are above 5-4 tend not to be viewed as strong precedent. They tend to be cited with “an Asterix” and the dissenting opinions are often more powerful than the holding of the court, and for those years and until the precedent precedent is corrected by a balanced court, our jurisprudence is in flux.

And unbalanced Supreme Court is never a good idea.

To be clear, the decision is still the law of the land, it just isn’t viewed as a good jurisprudence.

Why not? Chief Justice Roberts said that there are no Republican or Democratic judges. So it really is just five jurists who reasonably see things one way, and four who reasonably see things the other way. They are just umpires. And sometimes a pitch is a close call. If you disagree, then you’ll have to assert that politics comes into play, contrary to Roberts’ view.

This is hardly just CJ Roberts's view. What is often called politics is really just a difference in philosophy, view point and legal theory.

It is easy to say the side you disagree with is playing politics, while your side is being "true" to the law. But I assure you that people on the other side (whichever that is) believe that you are playing politics. In a 5-4 decision on "party" lines, it is kind of hard to say one side is playing politics while the other isn't, because that determination will come down to which side you believe was right -- something very hard to separate from your political views.

It shouldn’t be hard to say if, again, we have been assured that there are no Republican or Democratic judges.