Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, June 27, 2014

Garrett Epps, The Atlantic: Despite an unusual number of 9-0 opinions this Supreme Court term, there are deep ideological divisions just below the surface. A Court's explanation of its decision will create a new precedent and change old ones. And in reasoning, the Roberts Court is sharply divided. On one side is the four-justice moderate-liberal bloc: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. On the other is a hard-right gang of three -- Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are both very conservative, but unlike the other three, they don't always insist on total triumph, and sometimes make common cause with the moderate liberals.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

That's what happened Thursday in two "unanimous" cases. Nine justices agreed on the result, but they split 5-4 on the reasoning. In both cases, the moderate side wrote the opinion of the Court because Roberts or Kennedy joined it.

In both cases, four conservative justices wanted to radically change the law; in both cases, a five-justice majority opted for incremental change.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Another perspective:

Even if the court splits 5 to 4 in the four cases that remain [including the two mentioned in the thread article], the court will still have decided 63 percent of its cases without dissent this term. Such a degree of unanimity is unheard of in recent years, as I noted here. The last time the court was unanimous in the judgment in a majority of cases was OT2005, and then the court only hit 55 percent. The Volokh Conspiracy
While a difference in reasoning is important nevertheless absence of dissent is the true mark of unanimity. The result on the core issue, whether the lower court[s] decided the issue correctly or incorrectly, is what stands and is most important to the parties.

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-27 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

The core issue with this court is it's activist rwing justices, and the fact that even in unanimity on some outcomes, the political split is still the prominent, "core" issue of the court.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-27 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Supreme Court's Skin-Deep Unanimity

is the headline, for those who managed to ignore it.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-27 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Skin deep headline also known as superficial. It plays to superficial readers.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-27 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The core issue with this court is it's activist rwing justices,"

By that you mean anyone who rules at something less then with a far left bias every time.

The funny thing is that the current court still rules to the left at a higher percentage. But i guess that's those pesky rwing activist justices right?

#5 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-27 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46

lol, can't even admit what the article is about.

-But i guess that's those pesky rwing activist justices right?

No, it's just that even those rwingers can't overrule the law on the books as often as they would like.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-27 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Although you might have gotten the part about the superficiality of the unanimity... naw!

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-27 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No, it's just that even those rwingers can't overrule the law on the books as often as they would like."

So what you are saying is that they are only activists as far as they can go without changing the law?

And you want to stick with activist?
Are you even aware of the definition of that word?

Always a good laugh when reality and reason go up against opinion formed solely by political cartoons.

#8 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-27 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Professor Epps taught me Civil Procedure. I wish he didn't move back to the East Coast, because he was a much better professor and neighbor than he was a poker player.

#10 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-27 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

...the political split...

The only thing that matters to you, superficiality.

Constitutional theory is beyond news reports. So, you're left behind.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-28 03:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

lol, the politicization of the SC is, "superficial".

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-28 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort