From "Trump’s Supreme Court Picks Are Not Quite What You Think" by David Lat and Zachary B. Shemtob (NYT).
१२ फेब्रुवारी, २०२३
"The significant ideological gap between Justices Thomas and Alito, on the one hand, and the Trump nominees, on the other, can be seen in their Martin-Quinn scores..."
"... a measure of judicial ideology developed by political scientists. Based on their rulings during the court’s last term, Justices Thomas and Alito earn scores of 2.949 and 2.458, the higher number signifying greater conservatism. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett earn scores of 1.019, 0.791 and 1.318, respectively — fairly close to one another, but markedly different from the two scores of the staunch conservatives anchoring the right wing of the court.
Nor do the Trump justices march in lockstep with one another. In fact, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disagreed more with each other in their first term together than any other pairing of justices appointed by the same president since the Kennedy administration.... They have found themselves on opposite sides of such issues as the death penalty, defendants’ rights, immigration law and Indian law.... 'The conservative wing of the court is not a monolith.'... And understanding these nuances is critical, especially for lawyers and legal organizations on the left who are 'playing defense'...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
They can disagree with each other all they want, so long as they don't vote with the Democrats.
The Supreme Court is corrupt. Like every other institution in Washington, DC. Don't for a minute think it's not Republicans versus Democrats.
My mother used to say, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." This sounds like another wish.
...as opposed to Obama's and Biden's Supreme Court picks who are exactly what you think they are.
And the reason there is no comparison with the liberal justices is.....?
Hidden behind paywall, but one can guess, can one not?
Welp, it is an independent judiciary after all.
This article was written by 2 white guys and its just more white supremacy propoganda.
It never ends.
There are all types of conservatives. Large differences between economic conservatives and social/cultural conservatives.
I’d be interested in knowing the liberal justice’s scores.
"This article was written by 2 white guys..."
No
Here’s the processed data for the scores. The text file isn’t the easiest to read.
http://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/measures.php
Trump's picks are squishes compared to Thomas and Alito because they're the ones Mitch would allow. The GOPe wing of the DC vulture only allows what benefits them - the country be damned.
The Constitution isn't written in a foreign language, and the restriction applied to the government are more than clear. Alito, and Thomas are better described as "originalists" instead of conservative.
The founders understood the pitfalls of an unrestrained government, and the Supreme Court has the duty to protect every citizen from tyranny. I doubt some on the court ever read the Federalists Papers or the Constitution. With the same ignorance spread out over the country in the Federal courts, the basic rights guaranteed are eroded daily by decisions based on the lack of following the basic laws of the United States.
Did they publish the liberals Martin-Quinn scores? An what I'd really like to see is how often the liberals disagree with each other. Did the article include that analysis?
Interesting.
I figured Kavanaugh for a squish and Gorsuch as more libertarian than conservative.
Where does Roberts fit in?
What responsibility does the Times take for making people think there isn't a difference when all they do is label them conservative (i.e.bad guys who vote in lockstep).
Maybe if the times actually reported the differences all along, people wouldn't think that way.
Like all the Times articles where the reporter is shocked to find out flyover country isn't made up the backwards rube characters they thought lived there.
It would probably help the court’s reputation a great deal if the media put less emphasis on the ideological splits and talked more about the 8-1 decisions and the splits that did not cut along ideological lines. There are plenty of them.
"Trump’s Supreme Court Picks Are Not Quite What You Think"
If "you" are a prog, sure; if "you" are a regular conservative, you knew exactly what you were getting with squishy Brett.
BIII Zhang said "The Supreme Court is corrupt." On what basis? The justices are chosen exactly as the founders intended, nominated by the President, an elected official. The founders would not be surprised that the process of nominating and approving justices is political. Political does not equal corrupt.
Charlie Currie said "Trump's picks are squishes compared to Thomas and Alito because they're the ones Mitch would allow." I gather you loathe McConnell, but I am not aware that he had anything to do with choosing Trump's nominees. Trump chose from a list of candidates prepared by the Federalist Society, not McConnell. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/behind-the-scenes-of-how-trumps-supreme-court-list-is-made But surely you know this. What gives?
A Quinn Martin production?
From a different article, Sotomayor is -3.48, Kagan is -1.69, and Breyer is -1.87. And by way of reference, Ginsburg was -2.82. So they are all liberal, but the Wise Latina is by far the most liberal.
Republicans continue to refuse to understand that there is a civil war going on with the democrats.
Jim K - Good points.
The 2 authors are married to each other.
Jim K asked: "On what basis (is the Supreme Court corrupt)? The justices are chosen exactly as the founders intended ..."
The United States Supreme Court runs a Star Chamber. That concept is repugnant in a free and open society and is the hallmark, the absolute apex, of abject judicial corruption.
This Star Chamber has been used by equally corrupt government officials to execute all kinds of illegal and unconstitutional activities upon American citizens, for which the People have no say whatsoever and for which there is NEVER any punishment of any kind doled out by that court even when it is being abused and used for nefarious and abjectly illegal purposes.
This court should be ASHAMED to show its face in public and I spit on them. Our founding fathers would shoot them dead.
they enabled the stolen election, yet brought federalism to roe, have chipped away at the mandates apparat, but have not done away with it, and they left title 42 hanging in the wind,
“Gorillas in the SCOTUS” as a variation of the standard journalistic treatment of Conservatives. I suppose that’s progress for this lot.
Conservative centrism: pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a Constitution that mitigate progressive liberalism and authoritarianism.
That said, the missing piece of the puzzle under the Pro-Choice ethical religion is is conncieved in the adoption of DIEversity in lieu of diversity of individuals, minority of one.
FOWFan @ 10:45: “… From a different article, Sotomayor is -3.48, Kagan is -1.69, and Breyer is -1.87. And by way of reference, Ginsburg was -2.82. So they are all liberal, but the Wise Latina is by far the most liberal.”
Good to know, thanks. But does this metric include a correction for IQ?
A Martin-Quinn Production!
a measure of judicial ideology developed by political scientists
Keep in mind that most "political scientists" tend to be on one side of the political divide (hint: not conservative)...
Roberts was a .70 for comparison
yes the Court is flawed but compared to what?
Interesting data. Here are Scalia's scores for every year he was on the court
1986 105 AScalia 1.392
1987 105 AScalia 1.642
1988 105 AScalia 1.817
1989 105 AScalia 1.996
1990 105 AScalia 2.153
1991 105 AScalia 2.511
1992 105 AScalia 2.547
1993 105 AScalia 2.65
1994 105 AScalia 2.892
1995 105 AScalia 3.18
1996 105 AScalia 3.403
1997 105 AScalia 3.481
1998 105 AScalia 3.468
1999 105 AScalia 3.545
2000 105 AScalia 3.544
2001 105 AScalia 3.389
2002 105 AScalia 3.088
2003 105 AScalia 2.916
2004 105 AScalia 2.721
2005 105 AScalia 2.633
2006 105 AScalia 2.59
2007 105 AScalia 2.436
2008 105 AScalia 2.324
2009 105 AScalia 2.296
2010 105 AScalia 2.123
2011 105 AScalia 2.05
2012 105 AScalia 1.733
2013 105 AScalia 1.593
2014 105 AScalia 1.524
2015 105 AScalia 1.597
William Douglas was the most extreme of any justice, especially his last 10 ten years (which can accurately be dubbed the decade of "I just dont give a shit anymore and what are you going to do about it").
1966 81 WODouglas -7.309
1967 81 WODouglas -7.463
1968 81 WODouglas -7.585
1969 81 WODouglas -7.664
1970 81 WODouglas -7.735
1971 81 WODouglas -7.798
1972 81 WODouglas -7.828
1973 81 WODouglas -7.87
1974 81 WODouglas -7.923
1975 81 WODouglas -7.929
The conservative justices match the nature of conservatives nationally in this country and elsewhere. It is on the left where you see such lock-step thinking, almost clone like. The thinking on the right runs the gamut. There is no one kind of conservative thinking. On the other hand, our leftist justices never surprise, there is never any wonder or doubt about how they'll vote on anything. It's always a known known. And it's accepted that that's how it's supposed to be (it's not). They reflect leftism as it is, for the most part, everywhere. Clone-like in their thinking to the point of almost religious devotion. With a few possible exceptions when it comes to declaring what is a woman.
So SCOTUS isn't a Quinn-Martin Production?
I pegged Kavanaugh as another drama queen anthony kennedy type during the hearings. I have no idea why ACB was nominated. Gorsuch was praised by Jonah Goldberg and the other Never trumpers.
You can't blame Trump. He never pretended to be a social conservative. To win their support, he promised ot appoint from a list of Judges recommended by the conservative "Federalist Society" and that's what he did.
Social Conservatives have long been stuck on stupid. Their MO is to do zero research about possible conservative Judges, believe anything the Republican Establishment says, celebrate when the nominees win confirmation aka "owning the libs" and then complain for the next 20 years about how liberal the judge turns out to be.
They bought into the Souter hype (Bush was playing 4-D chess doncha know), loved Roberts (he was so handsome and smart), and cheered for Gorsuch and Kavannaugh. The only time they actually were smart is when they stopped Bush II from putting his secretary on the SCOTUS.
Let's see, "climate scientists(?)" build a model, how's that working out? Why expect more from a model built by "political scientists(?)"? "The measures are estimated using a dynamic item response theory model, allowing judicial ideology to trend smoothly through time. Since the scores are estimated from a probability model, they can be used to form other quantities of interest, such as locating the pivotal "median" justice, as all well the location of each case in the policy space." From the M-Q website!
Of course, most conservatives can't tell the difference between a state judge and a federal one. Nor have they taken time to know district, appeallate, and Supreme Court Judges all have different roles and responsibilities.
If you try to discuss reducing the power of the Liberal Judiciary, they immediately come back and start talking of repealing the 17th Admendment and letting state legislatures pick US Senators. A little like someone directing you to foot Doctor for a Heart problem.
Apparently, anyone who is not woke is a fascist. Kagan should be quite nervous.
The thing is most of the cases that come before the Supreme Court are of little interest to the citizenry, dealing with issues that only impact particular industries or relatively small number of people. These are still important in the sense that the law needs to be made clear, but they typically remain in obscurity unless some activist or another suddenly decides that a particular case is now a litmus test and starts a freak out. Generally, when it comes to rating justices we don't particularly care about these obscure cases unless (a) the reasoning is poor or (b) it surprisingly impacts things we do care about. If Kavanaugh and Alito disagree on some edge case that's interesting to legal fanboys and fangirls, but I don't care. The big cases are are what matters. Trump's nominees have been good, though not perfect in this regard as far as I'm concerned.
There is a critical difference between conservative policies versus conservative jurisprudence. The latter is often inimical to the former. Moreover, even the most faithful originalists can disagree in good faith over the meaning of text. Words are imperfect carriers of meaning. I would imagine most political scientists, like most Americans, fail to appreciate such nuances and instead crudely use policy outcomes as a some type of measuring rod.
For instance, Justice Kennedy was, as I recall, oft maligned in these precincts for being a results-oriented jurist who failed to honor the policy vs. legal distinction. I disagree. Justice Kennedy consistently favored an extraordinarily broad understanding of the Bill of Rights, a broad understanding of state powers, and a narrow understanding of federal powers. Put too simply, his constitutional jurisprudence favored the Bill of Rights over state powers, and state powers over federal powers. This classically conservative jurisprudence led to policy outcomes sometimes favored by conservatives and sometimes favored by liberals, but to his credit he really was quite consistent and predictable in his legal reasoning.
Martin-Quinn Scores ...
Measuring the relative location of U.S. Supreme Court justices on an ideological continuum allows us to better understand the politics of the high court. In addition, such measures are an important building blocking (sic) of statistical models of the Supreme Court, the separation of powers system, and the judicial hierarchy.
...
The measures are estimated using a dynamic item response theory model, allowing judicial ideology to trend smoothly through time.
https://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/
All that rolled up into a single four digit number ... Wow!
This thing is “accurate” to three decimal places? What are the units: what physical, intellectual or jurisprudential reality do they represent? Do they represent actual values or are they just a way to rank the jurists against one another: with a Sotomayor being “balanced” by, say, 5 Robertses?
Conservatives should want strong intellects with a conservative bent on the court, rather than the left’s safe votes checking demographic boxes. And that is what we got from Trump.
I'm pretty sure that the drafters of the Constitution did not intend that the Supreme Court would have the FINAL WORD on contentious public policy issues like abortion, gay rights -- or school integration. Congress really ought to decide many such issues, but Congressmen and Senators rarely lose elections for passing the buck. Personally, I'd prefer it if the buck got passed to the States, rather than to the Supremes. There's an actual basis for THAT buck-passing in the Constitution. But I'm a dreamer.
OIC, Wince beat me to it. Wince!
1) Calculating an analysis of a qualitative, subjective data set to four significant figures? That's the sort of thing that shouts, "We're using a formula that we don't actually understand." I'd be willing to buy two significant figures. Maybe. On a really good day.
2) Conclusion of the analysis: not all judges appointed by Republican administrations are ready to put y'all back in chains. Whodathunkit?
a measure of judicial ideology developed by political scientists
Ugh. I loathe political "science."
To me, this article is a fucking joke.
The left has become more racist in my lifetime, and more hostile to free speech.
So a liberal jurist who believes in free speech and equal protection would -- if she stayed true to her jurisprudence -- be labeled as "moving to the right" if she continued protecting free speech and equal protection.
Of course there are jurists who are result-oriented and have no jurisprudence. Their opinions are jurisprudential oatmeal and can go fucking anywhere. You're basically shit-out-of-luck arguing with people like that. They will do whatever they want, because they are lawless.
On the other hand, if a judge claims to be a textualist, then you might be able to win that vote by focusing on the relevant language of the law.
I think Hugo Black and Nino Scalia would have gotten along very, very well, and the Supreme Court would have been much stronger if these two jurists had sat on the Court at the same time. I would urge Democrats and Republicans to put textualists on the Court.
(If we were to have textualists on the left and the right, the level of agreement would boggle the minds of the fuckwit political scientists with their mathematical formulas, holy shit).
Reading this comments, make me shake my head. People on the center-right don't get it. I mean you really don't understand. We have 3 leftwing judges on the court. They are results oriented. They vote their politics. THey vote as bloc. Period. End of dicussion. Comprende vous?
We have 2 judges who actually care about the consitution. And vote that way.
We have 4 judges who are mixture. sometimes they vote their principles. Sometimes they vote their politics. And 2 of them - Roberts, Kavanugh - are Susan Collins/Romney Republicans. 2 of them Goresuch and ACB are more conservative. Maybe, Mitch McConnell Republicans.
THe problem is NOT getting SCOTUS judges who will "vote the constitution not their politics". We've been trying that for 40 years. We need to recongnize the SCOTUS had turned into a Polticial institution, which is how the D's view it, and reduce its power. Or we need to put hard-core Rightwingers on the court.
Gerrymandering/the Senate/a POTUS that is more con that the people are……sure we have a system where the will of the people is overridden by a tyrannical minority in power.
That’s the way the system is designed to be.
But the thing that’s cool to me is when Tea Party/ MAGA types cry about how they’re oppressed and censored. Hilarious stuff.
IMHO.
@rcocean --
We get it but disagree. Turning the judicial branch into a super legislature is exactly how self-governance and the rule of law is lost. Although much of the Left is willing to embrace those means in order to achieve their ends, it would be a tragic mistake for the Right to follow suit.
There may be non-political judicial philosophies not dependent on text or original meaning, but I've yet to encounter one. Give Erwin Chemerinsky credit: he admits he believes that it should be all about political outcomes. There is a reason the late Wm. Van Alstyne -- a rigorously honest constitutional scholar and liberal -- did not respect him. We are so in need of honest scholars today, especially those who lean Left. Tribe has turned into a cartoon.
So maybe the left will stop trying to kill them now?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा