1) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel
Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum
facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent
stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to
choose an abortion.
Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against
abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings.
The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR
reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.
2) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news by speaking his mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.
As the above data shows, Thomas' silence during Supreme
Court oral arguments is legendary. While his colleagues pepper lawyers with
questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8 justices force legal teams to
perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes at a time, Thomas often leans
back in his large chair and stares at the ceiling.
"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds
himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on
the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William
O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens
has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently
than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions
than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the
need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has
written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the
Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on
terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it
hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to
federal courts."Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is one of the two linked articles you need to read and comment on by Monday.
This is one of the two linked articles you need to read and comment on by Monday.
4) The second article you need to have read by Tuesday is Time's cover story from October, 2007:
The Incredible Shrinking Court
"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives
of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative
action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long,
sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly
specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that
Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a
man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than
in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed
presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the
least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and
rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but
remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly
symbolic."READ MORE
5) SCOTUSblog STAT PACK
Probably way more statistics on The Supremes, but if you are doing this assingment option, filter through the Stat Pack and share the three (3) biggest takeaways that you get from the numbers about our current Supreme Court. Why are these stats interesting to you?
6) Finally, a re-run post from 2009's 'Global Warming' SC
decision:
The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.
The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar.
At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.
From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.
JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.
(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.
MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.
The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.
The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar.
At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.
From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.
JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.
(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.
MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.
32 comments:
unable to acces "the incredible shrinking court" unless you are subscribed to time magazine
SCOTUSblog stats:
1. 100% of the cases were all writs of cert with 73% of all cases being civil cases. i think this is mostly because of the large gray areas in civil cases. while the constitution and federal/state law have laid the grounds for strict criminal prosecution, civil action is much harder to come by without "infringement" on some groups' rights.
2. in all cases, most of the justices side with the majority. the lowest, scalia with 78%, is surprising because of the video we saw of him. he is quite an inflammatory individual. however, in divided cases, the percentage of justices that side with the majority drastically drops. justice kennedy, highest percentage in both categories, goes through a 8% drop, from 91-83 whereas scalia drops 20%.
3. there are more 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than any other combination. this shows some infighting and perhaps tension within the court. the average strength of the court is 7.4, so there is usually a clear majority in each decision.
"The Incredible Shrinking Court" link now works. Please make sure you summarize each article to complete your "flipped" assignment.
ScotUS stats.
1. 49% of cases are decided by a 9-0 votes, as opposed to 29%, which are 5-4. This is interesting because when most people think of Supreme Court cases, they think controversial. However, majority of cases heard manage to pass unanimously.
2. In closes cases (5-4) Justice Kennedy was in the majority 87% of the time. This can be interpreted in two ways, either he is on the constitutionally/legally correct side 87% of the time, or that he holds significant influence over how the other 8 justices vote.
3. Scalia has written the most dissenting opinions of all the sitting justices, with 11. This reaffirms what we saw in the video, that he is often at odds with the majority due to his strict views.
Stevens article
I think this article is particularly interesting, because unlike the executive or the legislative branch, there are no strict party divides, which means that the term liberal and conservative are relative to those also serving on the bench. This is clearly evident in Justice Stevens’ situation.
Time Article
This article gave good insight into the goals he has for his court; the main of these is to create a politics free court. While it is clear he has attempted to write opinions/critiques for both sides of an argument. In my opinion however, I think Justice Roberts may be a bit too hopeful. Because after all, he only has so much influence over his fellow justices,
SCOTUSblog
1. Justices Kagan and Ginsberg agree in 96% of all cases, and it seems to me that that is a bit too high for me to think they're ruling for reasons that aren't political.
2. The Court has not settled any cases that were brought to it by appeal, however one is on the docket. Too me this seems really wierd, maybe they don't want to take action about something, but I think that they should check out some of the appealed cases, that's part of their job!
3. Justice Kennedy is in the majority close to 90% of the time, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume he's probably doing it for political reasons.
Stevens Article:
I think this article is really good, it allowed me to realize that the supreme court has an advantage over that of congress. Their role is much less party based. While I'm sure that their party has some affect on their decision, it's much better in my mind then at the level of partisanship as the legislative branch.
Time Article:
I think that while it's nice of Justice Roberts to try and keep as even an oppinion as possible, it is unrealistic. While no one should delay justice for a personal belief, it's also pretty naive to think that someones personal oppinions won't affect a ruling. But I still applaud Justice Roberts for his efforts.
ScotUS Stats:
1. "The Court produced its second-lowest number of total opinions since we began collecting statistics." The top 2 lowest number opinions back to back and are the most recent. This suggests that nobody is questioning the courts anymore and that gives them free reign to do almost whatever they want. That or the reasons were already stated in precedent cases and did not need to be explained.
2. "Justices Ginsburg and Kagan had the highest rate of agreement for all cases during OT12. The pair of Justices agreed in ninety-six percent of all cases." This statistic suggest these 2 have a kind of pact together along the same lines of the logrolling tactic.
3."Justice Clarence Thomas issued more opinions this Term than any of his colleagues, twenty-five. He authored eight majority opinions." This suggest that there is a leader behind the scenes who is controlling the others or is working really hard and persuading other justices.
Stevens Article
This article taught me that there are no political reasons for why the justices vote the way they do, but there are different parties in the supreme court. The strict and the activist judges can be clearly identified and in an age where nothing is black and white I think there should me more variation to how a judge votes. Judges should look at each case differently and try to reach more common ground instead of having a divided court.
Shrinking Court
This article gave me insight on just how little the supreme court was actually doing. This is supposed to be the highest court and while they do make decisions they are not changing anything by these decisions. The decisions they are making only effect a few people, when 20 years ago the supreme court was striking down over 30 state laws over one of their decisions. What I'm trying to say is that the court now are being wussies and are not making big decisions that can set precedent for other cases, instead they are setting rules for little problems and are afraid to try and tackle some of the big problems in America. They are doing the bare minimum right now and that is what the article means by a shrinking court.
SCOTUSblog:
1. 49% of the Court’s cases were decided by a vote of 9-0, while 29% were 5-4, for a combined total of 78% of all cases. The justices all seem to think in similar ways, but the 5-4 votes may fall along political lines. That is not represented in the stats.
2. The Court did not decide any cases that came to it by way of an appeal. This aspect of the court has been dwindling for the past few years now. It shows that they usually agree with the original ruling of the case, which is good because that means the courts are being consistent.
3. The conservative bloc once again dominated the slate of 5-4 opinions. From this stat it is suggested that cases are decided along political lines. Judges may be more biased towards one side depending on their political views, so the ruling may not be completely objective.
"The Dissenter"
I thought it was interesting that Stevens labels himself as a conservative while he is viewed as a very liberal justice. The fact that everyone else on the court is very conservative to the point he seems to be on the opposite ideological side illustrates how lopsided the court is. If more truly liberal justices were appointed, there would be a better mixture of political views and less bias. Although this fact also illuminates that the court is not party based. They try to take the political aspect out of the court in order to make decisions completely objective, although sometimes it does not come across that way.
Shrinking Court
Many of the very important cases have already been deciding on, leading very few controversial cases left. The cases that are decided often affect a limited number of people because of their specificity. Roberts has been trying to remove politics form the court by arguing both sides, but it seems that this has had little effect. He believes that "working towards a broader agreement should be one of the shared aims". Hopefully this goal will be achieved soon.
the dissenter: the article shows that while there are no party divides in the court, there are clear lines along which each justice votes the way they do, be it their own personal life or what have you. while there are no party divides, the ideological divides lead to a divided court
shrinking court: in this day and age, the court has very little controversy to rule on. every major case has come before our time and this leads to cases with little percolation and maybe frivolous cases. in class, we talked about how people can pay for certs, and in the stats, the court hears a significantly larger amount of cases from those that pay. also in the stats, justice roberts is also the one that votes with the majority most often.
SCOTUS blog take aways:
1. Justice Kennedy was once again the Justice most frequently in the majority of 5-4 decisions. He has been either the most frequent Justice in the majority of 5-4 decisions, or tied for that title, in every Term since OT03 and thirteen times since OT95. (Page 16).
*** Personally, I think this is a very important factor to understand in terms of justice discussion. Kennedy seems to be the most frequent justice to take the majority in decisions. This can mean that either Kennedy sticks to polar decisions, or that he is a very controversial Justice that has frigid opinions.
2. The Court released a greater percentage of 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than it has in the past.
*** This means that our Justices are split in such a way that they all are unanimous, or that they are all split. Is this important to our generation? Of course, it shows that even our judicial branch has inflexible ideologies and making decisions has often yielded to the split party theory.
3. . Of the fourteen cases at the Supreme Court during OT12 that came from the Ninth Circuit, two were affirmed and twelve were reversed, an eighty-six-percent reversal rate. The Court’s average reversal rate for other circuits and state supreme courts was sixty-nine percent.
****This honestly just shows that there is a rate of reversal and indication of a flawed system.
Stevens Article: Basically, this article covered how the Court is driven more by the words of the Constitution because the Court isn't really influenced by the parties. I think this is very important because this is one sphere of power that is often overlooked, but it is a direct indicator of our non bias and minority valuing democracy.
Times Article:
This article basically covered the fact that the Supreme Court's impact and influence on politics is slowly diminishing because of how we currently view politics. We have forgotten many equality based arguments, and many of our political problems have shifted towards social class independency. This article also gave a way of change in the Court. The author tried to indicate ways to change the political nature of court.
SCOTUS blog take aways:
1. Justice Kennedy was once again the Justice most frequently in the majority of 5-4 decisions. He has been either the most frequent Justice in the majority of 5-4 decisions, or tied for that title, in every Term since OT03 and thirteen times since OT95. (Page 16).
*** Personally, I think this is a very important factor to understand in terms of justice discussion. Kennedy seems to be the most frequent justice to take the majority in decisions. This can mean that either Kennedy sticks to polar decisions, or that he is a very controversial Justice that has frigid opinions.
2. The Court released a greater percentage of 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than it has in the past.
*** This means that our Justices are split in such a way that they all are unanimous, or that they are all split. Is this important to our generation? Of course, it shows that even our judicial branch has inflexible ideologies and making decisions has often yielded to the split party theory.
3. . Of the fourteen cases at the Supreme Court during OT12 that came from the Ninth Circuit, two were affirmed and twelve were reversed, an eighty-six-percent reversal rate. The Court’s average reversal rate for other circuits and state supreme courts was sixty-nine percent.
****This honestly just shows that there is a rate of reversal and indication of a flawed system.
Stevens Article: Basically, this article covered how the Court is driven more by the words of the Constitution because the Court isn't really influenced by the parties. I think this is very important because this is one sphere of power that is often overlooked, but it is a direct indicator of our non bias and minority valuing democracy.
Times Article:
This article basically covered the fact that the Supreme Court's impact and influence on politics is slowly diminishing because of how we currently view politics. We have forgotten many equality based arguments, and many of our political problems have shifted towards social class independency. This article also gave a way of change in the Court. The author tried to indicate ways to change the political nature of court.
The Dissenter: Justice Stevens has been in the court for 32 years, having started out as a conservative, and rather then him change his ideology, the court has moved farther right, making him now a liberal. He is the leader of the Liberals, and he has to fight to gain support from the rest of the court. Often times, he needs to give the opinion to someone who is on the edge, in order to promote them to stay on the liberal side. This article illustrates just how political the supreme court has gotten. Rather than following the constitution, it is all about finding a way to support what the justices already believe.
The Incredible Shrinking Court: This article focuses on the fact that With Chief Justice Roberts coming into the court, the court is pretty much divided 50/50. Roberts has decided conservative on all major decision as one would suspect. This political court is leading to the incredible shrinking court. This refers to how the issues that the court has decided on and will decided on are not huge issues. Instead, they are small issues that will effect a few people, and are not as impactful as cases like Brown V. Bored of Education, and Roe V. Wade. An example is a ruling on death penalty that will literally effect one person. The influence that the court is having on the lives of Americans is truly dwindling.
1. The Court released a greater percentage of 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than it has in the past, 49% of the Court’s cases were decided by a vote of 9-0, while 29% were 5-4, for a combined total of 78% of all cases. This is interesting because it basically says the court either decides based on political beliefs, or just the solution is obvious. This leads no constitutional interpretation left for the court.
2. 86% of cases from the 9th circuit were reversed, compared to 69% for other circuits. This is alarming because apparently one of circuits must be liberal, while the supreme court is conservative. It is weird how political different courts can be.
3. The conservative bloc dominated most of the majority opinions. It is the same guys each time, clearly showing the political ideology being involved in a job where that is not supposed to matter.
"The Dissenter"- I thought that it was really fascinating that Justice Stevens believes he is conservative even though he is clearly one of the most liberal Justices on the panel. If anything, to me he seemed like a moderate, not to conservative and not to liberal. The only reason he seems liberal is because his more conservative colleagues are moving farther and farther to the conservative end of the political spectrum. The article talked about how the court has been increasingly conservative ever since the Warren Court ended. More and more justices personal beliefs are against things like abortion and race and ethnicity quotas. I found this interesting because it seems to me that the American people have become more accepting of liberal ideas such as these. The people of America and the court seem to be in disagreement.
"The Incredible Shrinking Court"- This article talked about how the court's role and the stakes of supreme court cases have diminished. The court's ideology has had an increasingly smaller role in the lives of Americans. Cases are becoming much more specific and impacting a much smaller group of people than older cases such as Roe v Wade and Brown v Board of Education.
Statistics-
1) "The court releaseda greater percentage of 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than it has in the past. On average, from OT08-OT11, 43% of its cases were decided 9-0, with 22% decided by a vote of 5-4, for a combined total of 55% of cases that were either 9-0 or 5-4. During OT12, 49% of the Court’s cases were decided by a vote of 9-0, while 29% were 5-4, for a combined total of 78% of all case" The 9-0 cases show that the court agreed on the issue and the case, while the 5-4 cases show that the Justices are drawing partisan lines and basing their decisions off of their personal beliefs. It seems strange that these two instances could happen at the same time.
2) "The conservative bloc once again dominated the slate of 5-4 opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito made up the majority in ten of the twenty-three cases decided by a five-Justice majority. The liberal bloc (Justice Kennedy plus Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) prevailed in six decisions" I think that this is interesting because it seems to me that everyday more and more people are disagreeing with extremely conservative views, and yet conservatives dominate the court. That doesn't add up to me.
3) "The Court produced its second-lowest number of total opinions since we began collecting statistics during OT95 – 169 opinions in seventy-eight merits cases, eight more than the 161 opinions released during OT11." This goes along with the Shrinking Court article. It seems that the court's decisions and opinions are having a smaller and smaller impact. However, it does not make sense that the court would have less opinions when they are split 5-4 on so many decisions.
SCOTUSblog stats:
. "The Court produced its second-lowest number of total opinions since we began collecting statistics during OT95 – 169 opinions in seventy-eight merits cases, eight more than the 161 opinions released during OT11." (Page 9).
2. "Justice Samuel Alito took a star turn during OT12, authoring a staggering six 5-4 opinions. That number is particularly remarkable because he was only in the majority in thirteen 5-4 opinions (only the fourth-highest total)"
3. "It is also the greatest number of 5-4 decisions in a single Term since OT06, when Justice Kennedy – who was in the majority of all twenty-four of that Term’s 5-4 decisions – wrote six majority opinions in 5-4 cases. Before that, no Justice had issued six majority opinions in 5-4 cases since we began tracking that statistic during OT95. (Page 12).
The conservative bloc once again dominated the slate of 5-4 opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito made up the majority in ten of the twenty-three cases decided by a five-Justice majority. The liberal bloc (Justice Kennedy plus Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) prevailed in six decisions. (Page 15)."
Stevens Article: This article covered how the Court is moved by these words in the Constitution. Also there is no party division that you would normally expect.
TIME article: This article focused on free court. overall it was pretty helpful article. There hopes are up way too high.
Stevens Article: I found it really interesting and admirable how concerned Justice Stevens is with upholding precedent. At the end of the article, he mentions a case in Indiana similar to the Bush v. Gore case and how his opinion was the same for both, and his opinion in Bush v. Gore was not just due to his own personal political inclinations. I also found his trips to Florida really interesting. I know getting way can be beneficial to work and since he and his clerks would all personally go through each brief, getting away was necessary for him to get through so many cases. He seems clever and to have a great deal of integrity in what he writes, as well as being effectively persuasive in getting a 5th Justice for a majority.
Incredible Shrinking Court Article: I found the whole situation of the Roberts court and the issues pertaining to it to be very interesting. Roberts' hope to unite the Supreme Court seems a little far-fetched, but not necessarily a bad thing to strive for. It is clear through this article how much politics really does play a large role in Supreme Court decisions, with judges usually siding on one side of an issue or another. I also found it interesting how the cases have changed from affecting so many people to nowadays when the decisions realistically influence a much smaller percentage of the population.
SCOTUS Blog Statistics:
1. The three female justices tend to agree with each other more than any of the other justices in regards to all cases. I find this interesting, but also not completely surprising as they are most likely going to agree about a lot of the same women's rights issues, and will likely tend to be more liberal because of this.
2. Also, the two highest percentages for decisions were (9-0) followed by (5-4) implying that there is rarely much of a middle ground. It seems like cases are usually very one sided or very split, which is interesting to think about.
3. The minimum time it takes to have a case heard is about 100 days, but for OT12, the court is moving more and more towards quicker turn around times. So instead of having just one case be less than 100 days as during OT11 and OT10, there were 5 for OT12. So it seems to me that Roberts is trying to be productive and get through cases efficiently.
SCOTUSblog:
1. 49% of cases are decided by a 9-0 votes whereas only 29% are 5-4. The 9-0 case shows that the court ruled unanimously but the 5-4 cases show the judges ruling on political lines. So basically either the ruling is clear cut or it's completely divided, there's no in between.
2. Justice Kennedy was in the majority of all the 5-4 cases and to me I feel like this mostly points out the influence he holds over the other votes. It's possible that majority of the time he was also on the constitutionally right side but I feel like this emphasizes his influence more than anything.
3. I found it really intriguing on how the three female justices tend to agree with each other more than with any of the other judges in respect to all cases. To me it made sense why, because of women's rights and issues that taunt women more than men, the judges would agree with each other and are possibly more liberal because of this.
The Dissenter:
I thought this article was really interesting because it gave us an insight on how unlike with any other branch of government, think this article is particularly interesting, there aren't really strict party divides. It was interesting to see how there aren't any political lines which cause the justices to vote the way they do. I also liked how Justice Stevens gave his own examples on how his own political beliefs and judgement didn't now affect his decision in cases.
Shrinking Court:
I liked this article and it's insight about the role of the Supreme Court in the country today. Firstly however, Robert is way too hopeful in uniting the Supreme Court. Through this article, it could be clearly seen how much politics actually does play a big role in the Supreme Court. It's because of politics that usually judges would side one of the issue or the other. Also, it was interesting to see how the impact of these cases is "shrinking" and the decisions are influencing a much smaller amount of people than it used to.
The Dissenter:
I think it's pretty interesting that there were more 5-to-4 decisions split than every before in the court history. I think that is troubling to hear because you would think that the Court should be at least more unifying than that.
SCOTUSblog:
1. I think it's surprising that the 9th Circuit of Appeal has a 86% reversal rate. They must be really convincing.
2. Justice Kennedy was the Justice most frequently in the majority of the 5-4 decisions. Either he's right most of the time or he's not.
3. I think it's pretty crazy that there are either more 9-0 rulings or 5-4 rulings than any other combination. The court has either been more unified or more divided than ever before.
The Dissenter
- This article is intended to portray the now politically based Supreme Court through the experiences of veteran member Justice Stevens. It begins by describing the confusion around Stevens' placement on the political spectrum. He was once considered conservative, but he is now one of the more liberal justices on the court. This is not because Stevens' perspective has changed, but because the political ideologies of the justices around him have shifted right in a common attempt to preserve the Constitution as it stands. This is the introduction to the newly politically based Supreme Court. Party lines must now be set, and decision are much more often split because of this. This split leads to political action being taken. Stevens' job is now to convince justices who are on the edge to vote on the liberal side. The Supreme Court has strayed from cooperation due to the plague of politics.
The Incredible Shrinking Court
- This article undermines the division of the modern Supreme Court. Although this division makes coming to a decision more difficult, the article makes claim that this is a trivial matter. the Court's work is now focused primarily on minor cases that's results leave very little impact on the general public. And very large, far reaching cases have been around for decades with little to no change. These two factors contribute to the idea that the Supreme Court is becoming less significant. Obviously this is only true to a short extent, as the Supreme Court remains a necessary branch of government that claims restriction over other branches, while those branches reciprocate. But still, the article is intended to bring to light, the decreasing influence of the Supreme Court on the nation.
1. ) nearly 50% of cases were decided by a 9-0 unanimous vote, but only approximately 30% were decided by a divided 5-4 decision. This can be related back to the shrinking court article because a majority of modern Supreme Court cases are relatively minor and easy to come to a decisions on. However there is still a considerable amount of cases that are split and express the views of the Stevens article.
2.) while 69% of cases from most circuits were reversed, an astounding 86% were reversed in the 9th circuit. This shows the influence of a dominant political party on a court, and how the Court is now politically driven.
3.) The three female justices tend to agree with one another more so than other justices. Now this would be irresponsible of me to jump straight to stereotyping these women but it could be viewed as a representation of how Justices constantly vote a certain way and due to the split court, it becomes much more difficult to reach a unanimous decision.
SCOTUS Blog Facts:
1. I think it's interesting that the Supreme Court has released a greater percentage of 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than it has in the past. This shows that there are topics that are finite amongst the values of all the justices, as well as the law. It also shows that there are definitely topics that are quite controversial and cannot be agreed upon unanimously.
2. Justice Scalia writes most of the dissenting opinions on the court, which can be supported by the video we saw, as he can be seen as one of the more conservative justices on the Supreme court.
3. I think its really interesting that the three female justices on the court usually agree with each other the most out of all the members. This can either be attributed to gender stereotypes, as well as women's rights and equality issues.
Time Article (Shrinking Court)
This article interests me greatly, as it shows the declining influence that the Supreme Court has in the government. Despite the issued system of checks and balances, it is very easy to see the rift between the Legislative and Executive branches compared to the Judicial Branch. Even in the media today, it is evident that the judicial branch has the least coverage and attention.
Stevens Article (The Dissenter)
I really enjoyed this article, as it depicts the Supreme Court as an institution with less party divide than Congress. The members of the court have to work together to interpret the law, while making decisions and compromising despite their blatant political ideologies. It can also be argued that despite their different political views, the Supreme court does in fact decide fairly and lawfully on a lot of their cases, which says a lot against the divide in congress. The party bias in congress can benefit greatly from the actions of the Supreme court in terms of bipartisanship.
1. A majority of cases are decided by a 9-0 decision followed by just over a quarter of the cases decided by a 5-4 decision. This is important to our generation to say that justices either have very strict views or very loose.
2. in the close cases the court was in a majority nearly 90 percent of the time. This shows that the chief justice Kennedy is either on the constitutionally side or has great influence.
3. Justices Kennedy and Scalia both offer a lot of influence on the court and their opinions very often. Even so Kennedy is more influential in his attempt to takes politics out of the court.
The Decenter- With no politics on the court it can make it hard to decide if a justice is more liberal or conservative. It also makes parties unimportant in the court rather than it does in Congress.
Shrinking Court- THe article touches base on the influence of the court being less influential because of how politics are viewed. We look more to Congress to solve the issues of today and not the court to decide if it is legal.
ScotUS Stats.
1. 49% of the Court’s cases were decided by a vote of 9-0, while 29% were 5-4, for a combined total of 78% of all cases. I found this interesting because I would have thought that there would be a lot more 5-4 votes. I guess the Supreme Court can come together and make decisions better than Congress can.
2. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito made up the majority in ten of the twenty-three cases decided by a five-Justice majority. I found this interesting because I did not know which set of values, conservative or liberal, technically held the "majority" in the Supreme Court. I now know that it is the conservative bloc.
3. Justice Kennedy was once again the Justice most frequently in the majority of 5-4 decisions. What I understand from this is that Justice Kennedy is one of the more influential judges on the Supreme Court.
Stevens Article
I think Justice Stevens goal to keep the Supreme Court as unanimous as possible is a near impossible goal. There are bound to be issues that will sway some judges opinions to one side, and some to the other. He has delivered a significant amount of 9-0 decisions, but to have the all be unanimous is completely unrealistic. Even if every single member of the court was either conservative or liberal, there would still be cases that would divide them. It is human nature. We can never agree on everything all the time.
Time Article
This article brought up an interesting point that I really had not thought of. It says that controversial issues like abortion and gay marriage have been debated for so long that they are starting to lose their impacts on Americans lives. Its very ironic that there are controversial issues in which few people really care about the outcome.
1. The majority of cases are decided by a 9-0 vote, while a smaller percentage are decided by a 5-4 vote. This was surprising because i thought our government would have been more split on almost any issue.
2. Justice Kennedy seems to be in the majority of most of the 5-4 votes. This tells me he has great influence and respect in the court.
3. Justice Kennedy seems to be the most influential in the court. This makes me think he must be the most politically neutral in the court, thus people are more willing to listen to him.
TIMES Article:
I believe Justice Roberts is holding on to an ideal, and is not realizing the reality. It would nice to have all 9-0 decisions in the court, but people are different and will feel differently on certain things. I do, however, respect his desire to bring agreement to the court.
Stevens Article:
This was a very interesting read. It showed how the Supreme Court may be he only part of our government that isn't party based. It also shows how the justices are their to use the Constitution in their decisions, not their own opinions.
1. A 49% of cases are decided by a 9-0 decision and 29% are 5-4. Its weird to me to see that the entire court all decide on the same thing majority of the time. Does that mean these cases are that clear to be either constitutional or not?
2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan agree 96% of the time which can either show these two having an agreement to vote together or just really similar ideas that are rarely strained.
3. Justice Scalia has written 11 which is the most dissenting opinions of all the sitting justices. I can easily imagine him doing this after watching the video in class showing his own take on everything.
Stevens Article:
This article is really good. It taught me that there are no political reasons for why the justices vote the way they do because the Court is driven more by the words of the Constitution then by politics. That shows the separation of powers in action.
Time Article:
This article covered the fact that the Supreme Court's impact and influence on politics is diminishing because of how we view politics and all the justices decisions are not political and are in fact influenced by their personal opinions of the topic. No matter how hard we try our own opinions of situations control the way we react to that situation
SCOTUSblog
1.49% of the Court’s cases were decided by a vote of 9-0, while 29% were 5-4, for a combined total of 78% of all cases. Justices Kagan and Ginsberg agree in 96% of all cases, and it seems that is a bit too high to think they're ruling for reasons that aren't political.
2. The Court has not settled any cases that were brought to it by appeal. Since the amount of appeals are decreasing, the Court is generally agreeing with the original decision, which is good because it solidifies precedent.
3. The conservatives again dominated the group of 5-4 opinions. This suggests that cases are decided along political lines, with judges being more biased towards one side depending on their political views.Hence, the rulings really aren't objective.
The Dissenter
This article is interesting because it shows how partisanship has less of an effect on the Supreme Court and they aren't as bound over party lines. Furthermore, it is interesting that Stevens labels himself as a conservative while actually ruling rather liberally. This is further proof that the judges are less bound by party ideologies, and focus more on what they think is right.
Shrinking Court
Although Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to take petty politics out of the scope of Supreme Court decisions, this seems to be a bit naive. Also, since many of the big and controversial cases have already been voted on, the remaining cases leave little room for objectivity. Yet, he still has good intentions.
The Dissenter
It is refreshing to read about someone who is involved in the government and isn't so tied up in party affiliation. Justice John Paul Stevens can be described as liberal or conservative, but to him it really doesn't matter. His focus is on doing his job which is deciding court cases and upholding the law to the best of his ability. This is a trait that our Congressmen could certainly learn from. I also like this guy because even though he has been in the minority a lot, he is always ready to speak his mind fiercely when writing the dissenting opinion.
The Incredible Shrinking Court
I was a bit surprised by this article to learn that most of the cases being decided by the Supreme Court affect a very small amount of people. I think it's a good thing that Roberts is trying to make the court more bipartisan by arguing both political ideologies. His goal is for the entire court to try to reach agreement on some points by forgetting their personal beliefs, for the sake of unity. This is a very noble pursuit, but I think he may be a bit too optimistic - especially when you have guys like Scalia around.
Stats
1. "The Court released a greater percentage of 9-0 and 5-4 decisions than it has in the past. […] During OT12, 49% of the Court’s cases were decided by a vote of 9-0, while 29% were 5-4, for a combined total of 78% of all cases." This statistic surprised me because it showed that the vast majority of cases, 78%, in the October term were decided in stark contrast - either a unanimous vote, or a split vote. This shows that our justices are capable of ruling in agreement which each other, but they are also known for their disagreement when they stick to their own opinions.
2. "Justice Clarence Thomas issued more opinions this Term than any of his colleagues, twenty-five. He authored eight majority opinions, including five in cases that were decided 9-0, eleven concurring opinions, and six dissents." I think it's a great thing that he's issuing a lot of opinions. It gives him the chance to explain why he voted the way he did. Imagine if Congressmen had to do this when they voted on legislation - it might be hard for them when the sole reason they vote on things most of the time is lobbying pressure.
3. "The conservative bloc once again dominated the slate of 5-4 opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito made up the majority in ten of the twenty-three cases decided by a five-Justice majority." This surprised me that the conservatives are winning more in the Supreme court. In the Executive branch and Legislative branch (the Senate, specifically), you see the liberals winning more often. It shows that the Republican party and conservative ideology is still alive.
The Dissenter: I find it interesting to see how American politics have changed over the decade. What may have seemed radical and liberal 50 years ago is now viewed as something rather conservative. Even when Justice Stevens does not view himself as a liberal, you can still see that his own personal viewpoints has him siding with most liberal decisions in court.
Shrinking Court: It really is true. Our Supreme Court is holding less and less prevalence in the typical American life. Not just because the topics have been around so long, but it is also because so much of the cases always end up concluding that the state can decide what course of action they would like to take. It is as if the Supreme Court is cutting off their own influence one case at a time.
ScotUS stats:
1. For the first time in several years, the Court has not decided a case that has come from appeals. DIFFERENT FROM WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan usually agree on everything. Dynamic Duo.
3. Unanimous decisions or split decisions are what usually comes out during court decisions. I guess big important topics are either all agreed upon by the Court or one person becomes the deciding factor/swing vote.
SCOTUS:
1. 49% of cases are decided by a 9-0 vote whereas only 29% are 5-4. The 9-0 case shows that the court ruled unanimously but the 5-4 cases show the judges ruled with their own political or personal beliefs. I think that it is interesting that some votes are not always unanimous. It is really cool to me that they can stick to their guns.
2. The Court has not settled any cases that were brought to it by appeal. The court tends to stick with the precedent made by the original court which establishes legitimacy.
3. Justice Scalia usually has the dissenting vote in the court. From that video we watched in class, I could tell he was a very witty and surefire conservative, unwilling to waiver his opinion.
Dissenter:
I thought this article was really interesting because it exposed how divided our government is in reality. The justices however, try to stray from extreme partisan sides and rather liberal versus conservative views. Stevens is visually the antithesis of what many consider to be the typical left wing liberal. i think it is very cool that he is able to stick to what he believes despite opinionated conservatives like Scalia. American politics have definitely shifted in recent years to a battle royal between parties. It is nice to seem that some justices try to keep partisanship out of the court room.
Shrinking Court:
It is very interesting to consider the impact of the Supreme Court on society today. I have never actually considered the Supreme Court to have much prevalence in my life. I think Roberts hope in re-instating the prevalence and unity in the court is unrealistic and fanciful. Most court cases end at the state courts or can be established through precedent. When I think about it, eventually the Supreme Court will become obsolete once enough precent cases are established. Politics do play a huge role in the courts which is often the reason for divided jurisdiction.
ScotUS stats:
- 49% of the cases are passed unanimously, while only 29% of cases are a 5-4 decision.
- I thought it was quite interesting that all three female judges seem to agree on issues.
- in close cases the court was in majority nearly 90% of the time. Chief Justice Kennedy seems to have great influence over the court.
Stevens article:
Personally, I thought that this article was very interesting, because we have been taught all this year that parties play such a huge role in governing. But to find out that the Supreme Court is actually ruled less by party politics is rather cool.
Shrinking Court:
This article told me that basically our Supreme Court seems to have less to do than in the past. As most civil rights issues have been worked out, many frivolous cases are being brought to the court, and seem a waste of time. The decisions the Supreme Court makes do not affect very many people, and this leads to less influence by the Court.
1. Only 29% of cases are 5-4, which is kind of surprising because people normally assume that every justice will decidedly vote conservatively or liberally on every vote, thus causing a split the majority of the time. this is not actually the case, though.
2. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg agree on 96% of cases, which is probably for political reasons. Way too high of a number to be a coincidence.
3. The three female justices tend to agree with teach other most of the time, which isn't surprising. Their agreement is almost a display of solidarity. Yay for lady power!
Stevens article: I think the point of the article was to emphasize the fact that justices on the Supreme Court are not bound by political labels like conservative or liberal; but there is generally a pattern to the way they vote. I think Stevens is a good representation of a justice who can put his own political biases aside to vote on cases. Although he considers himself conservative, he still votes how he sees fit, even if it is seemingly liberal.
Time article: This article highlights the fact that since Chief Justice John Roberts entered the Court, he has pretty much been the deciding conservative vote on an otherwise 50/50 Supreme Court. Additionally, the article describes how the Supreme Court's decisions are having decreasingly significant effects on the lives of most Americans, because the majority of "hot-button controversies" have been around for so long and there has been so many rulings on them that only the most specific of cases even reach the Supreme Court, thus only really affecting the directly involved parties.
cheap jordans
jordan 4
curry 8
bape
golden goose superstar
kobe
balenciaga sneakers
canada goose jacket
pg 1
jordans shoes
click sitemy sources this websiteclick resources check over herehe said
find this gucci replica next best replica designer click here now Ysl replica
helpful hints check More hints over at this website home click for source
Post a Comment