How interesting that the conservatives point to Gorsuch as being so closely aligned with their positions, and yet one of the graphs shows him voting with the liberal Justices 44% of the time. This makes him a centrist. In fact, more Justices in the conservative wing appear to be in the center than those in the liberal wing. The graph also shows liberal wing voting over 80% of the time on liberal causes. Now who is more driven by political ideology? Conservative justices always seem to get bashed for being political, yet this article shows that attribution is not warranted.
Some questions are being asked as to whether Justice Kennedy has damaged his legacy by retiring prior to the upcoming mid-term elections, but in order for people in positions of power to be concerned with their legacy, they must be capable of recognizing things they've done wrong and questioning whether or not they should regret having done them - and that requires being capable of remorse.
People believing they'e never made a mistake or refuse to admit that they have are not capable of remorse and not worried about their legacy being damaged by not having it appear where it will continue to count - like on libraries, schools, or wings of children's hospitals... places that not only benefit just the people that shared their own beliefs, but on places that helped all of society.
The U.S. was founded upon principles of liberal democracy, of government by the consent of the governed, of equal protection and equality before the law, of a nation of citizens beholden to no higher human authority, of limited government without the authority to interfere with people's rights, lives, or property without due process. These all led to the decisions of the Supreme Court which conservatives claim deprive themselves of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and want to see reversed. To them communities of like minded people ought see their government as supporting their preferences, that they should not have to tolerate people who they think live contrary to how they prefer, and they should not be expected to suffer rules and laws that apply across the whole country to themselves if they do not agree with them. For them freedom is to be able to live as they choose and not suffer to tolerate others who do not. That is the brand of conservatism that Trump and the Republican Party are offering and using to decide who to nominate to replace Kennedy.
When we casually say that the political spectrum or court(s) have moved right, it does not encapsulate whatsoever the dramatic shift in society. It is a seismic shift for not only the 330,000,000 million lives of the United States, but has dramatic ripple effects towards the 7,400,000,000 of the world. (especially since a large portion of it looks towards the United States to lead)
The court has dealt with matters regarding power itself and how the President and/or Congress can wield it. That has effects in how it governs, how it stays in power and influence as other governments around the world trade with it.
The court has dealt with human rights and whether certain inalienable rights are indeed guaranteed to any of its citizens and any that may step on its soil. The effects of continuous war and upheaval from financial markets (which the U.S. leads) has displaced millions upon millions, while the U.S. is trying to raise the drawbridge.
The court has dealt with religious issues and whether they usurp those human rights, which are having ripple effects across the globe. The Middle East is aflame and has no plan for it to be extinguished anytime soon.
So to say the court has moved a little bit right is one of the most underwhelming statements one can make, and to have this President nominate another Justice and move it even further extreme right will undoubtedly have more of an effect on the world.
We cannot let that happen.
1
When we casually say that the political spectrum or court(s) have moved right, it does not encapsulate whatsoever the dramatic shift in society. It is a seismic shift for not only the 330,000,000 million lives of the United States, but has dramatic ripple effects towards the 7,400,000,000 of the world. (especially since a large portion of it looks towards the United States to lead)
The court has dealt with matters regarding power itself and how the President and/or Congress can wield it. That has effects in how it governs, how it stays in power and influence as other governments around the world trade with it.
The court has dealt with human rights and whether certain inalienable rights are indeed guaranteed to any of its citizens and any that may step on its soil. The effects of continuous war and upheaval from financial markets (which the U.S. leads) has displaced millions upon millions, while the U.S. is trying to raise the drawbridge.
The court has dealt with religious issues and whether they usurp those human rights, which are having ripple effects across the globe. The Middle East is aflame and has no plan for it to be extinguished anytime soon.
So to say the court has moved a little bit right is one of the most underwhelming statements one can make, and to have this President nominate another Justice and move it even further extreme right will undoubtedly have more of an effect on the world.
We cannot let that happen.
1
When we casually say that the political spectrum or court(s) have moved right, it does not encapsulate whatsoever the dramatic shift in society. It is a seismic shift for not only the 330,000,000 million lives of the United States, but has dramatic ripple effects towards the 7,400,000,000 of the world. (especially since a large portion of it looks towards the United States to lead)
The court has dealt with matters regarding power itself and how the President and/or Congress can wield it. That has effects in how it governs, how it stays in power and influence as other governments around the world trade with it.
The court has dealt with human rights and whether certain inalienable rights are indeed guaranteed to any of its citizens and any that may step on its soil. The effects of continuous war and upheaval from financial markets (which the U.S. leads) has displaced millions upon millions, while the U.S. is trying to raise the drawbridge.
The court has dealt with religious issues and whether they usurp those human rights, which are having ripple effects across the globe. The Middle East is aflame and has no plan for it to be extinguished anytime soon.
So to say the court has moved a little bit right is one of the most underwhelming statements one can make, and to have this President nominate another Justice and move it even further extreme right will undoubtedly have more of an effect on the world.
We cannot let that happen.
1
When Obama had the house and the senate in his favor he appointed not one but two VERY liberal justices. Did I like it? No. Did I yell and scream and protest? No. He did what he had every right to do.
Trump is now doing what he has every right to do. He is, literally, in the exact same position Obama was in and he is going to appoint a conservative justice. Period.
Liberals can scream and cry, but rules are rules.
The US continues its slide down that greasy slope of fall and decline; it is rapidly approaching the point of no return as the right-wing oligarchs solidify their power under the Birther Liar-in-Chief. America was once an admired country for its international leadership, its strong middle class, its upward social mobility, its measured politics and its striving for civil rights. Now it is, quite simply, an economic, political, and social mess driven by greed, money and lust for power. All great power fade. I think it's approaching our turn.
To all those who did not vote for HRC well done. Vlad Putin thanks you. The slide to the bottom picks up speed.
1
Not so fast. There is a hope, another attorney, Robert Mueller, who has yet to present his case to the ‘jury’ of the American people. The American voter has yet to have a say this November and beyond.
Also, the white vote will begin to fade as demographic numbers continue to change, particularly as Hispanic American and Asian American representation expands. The African American population is certainly not about to suddenly become conservative anytime soon. They continue to be at the heart of liberalism. They have not become accustomed to the lies told them.
So you see, there is hope. And it should continue to be created.
1
I wish the media would stop using the term "Conservatives." They are White Supremacists and reactionaries. It's not like this Court and the coming one is much different from the ones that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott, and it's not as if Trump's policies and beliefs differ that much from Wallace's, Nixon's, Reagan's, and the Bushes'. Trump is just cruder and more insane. Seriously: what else is the Southern Strategy but Jim Crow Lite? Enough with "conservative."
1
So.....how long before we are a Theocracy under Evangelical rule. Handmaid's Tale, anyone?
1
This story reads like an obituary for liberalism, as if conservatism was a disease. Imagine what is going to happen after Trump appoints another conservative judge. At least half the country will be pleased.
I just want to know, who is paying for all these political rallies, our injustice-in-chief keeps speaking at? Are we, the incredibly stupid and under-represented taxpayers, on the hook for our own demise? Whoever thinks our institutions will function as they have in the past is sadly, sadly misguided. We have a demagogue running the show, and nothing will be the same again, for human rights and freedom. Disrupter-in-chief, injustice-in-chief, rule-breaker-in-chief ... predicted, and now come to pass.
1
Kennedy atoned for his sins (Roe, Gay Marriage and Obamacare) prior to his retirement.
Better late than never.
The reason that so many more justices are appointed by the right of the GOP is not a rightward list in US politics. In fact, the reasons Presidents not being Democrats are similar to why G.H.W. Bush was not re eacted in 1992: third party interference.
In 2000-, again, third party candiate Ralph Nader whose name recognition was equal to that of Dmocrat Candidate Gore-took millions of votes from him and is considered the man who led so many Democratic voters down to the river, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. So highly did Nader regard himself, that he ran again in 04 with his hard core of supporters (who would have aided him in attacking the circles of Hell). Again, in 2016, the Democrats were convinced that they had a winner but, supporters of Mrs CLinton desired to show that they could have their candidate and punish her, too. Millions of them voted various third parties, begging afterward as excuse-"The NYTimes promised us she would be elected!-We just wanted to show her she couldn't be seen as the tool of Wall Street!" . The result was that a minority of extremist leftist Demcrats managed to elect their party's opponent.
This is a story which plays out more and more often-as many Americasns lose touch with the reality of our Electoral system. This could as easily change sides again as in '92
Congress is MUCH more powerful than the Courts and the President. The most important elections in this entire country are our elections to the House of Representatives every two years.
There's a reason why the capitalist press places so much emphasis on presidential elections and the Supreme Court. Remember that, people.
Everyone must answer to Congress. The Fed, the President, the Courts, the Bureaucracy, everyone. Congress controls the money and Congress has the right to get to decide what is the laws are going to be, i.e., they control the two single most important functions of government. Their power far eclipses the powers of the other two branches,
If the Courts strike down Roe then Congress can give them no choice and pass a law that says otherwise.
2
Yes, the group with the greatest powers is *elected*, not nominated. Something for progressives to think about. No free pass via the SCOTUS.
If Democrats honestly believe that having a Supreme Court with a solid conservative majority is a disaster, there IS something they can do about it. If and when a President is elected who would nominate a liberal judge for a seat on the Supreme Court if one was open, Democrats should make a generous retirement offer to one or more of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court at that time. I believe that every judge has his/her retirement price. Just get wealthy Democratic donors to pony up whatever it will take to open up a seat (or two) on the Court and solve your problem. No need to worry about how this might affect the dignity of the Court or the independence of the justices since Democrats (and Republicans) apparently are already convinced that the Supreme Court is basically a political institution.
1
DJT and Republicans are moving the government sharply to the right. However, the majority of Americans are not. What will happen when The Middle no longer has the ability to affect change through the mechanisms of our democracy that have long been in place? They will revolt and there will be upheaval, possibly violence. I shudder at the loss of thoughtful discussion and empathy.
1
The use of the traditional term conservative is misleading. Recently appointed "conservative" justices might almost have been brought up in a Matrix-style system for inculcating extremism and blocking out deviation from any open thinking. OK, it's not actually the Matrix, but a feeder system for producing a closed, extremist elite willing and eager to smash legal precedent (nothing conservative about that) to support desired political outcomes. Continued victories for this movement threaten to undermine trust and confidence by large swathes of the American public in the Judiciary.
3
The gerrymandering decisions are the ones that stand out. The gerrymandering itself is meant to disenfranchise voters, most often with racial overtones. The court was presented with ample evidence of its effects, in essence a calculated plan to get around "one man, one vote", as well as a simple metric to be used to show that it is happening. If there is a fairness doctrine to be applied to elections, the conservative majority hasn't heard of it.
4
what we need most is for RGB to retire, very partisan and way too liberal
1
There is no 'Roberts Court'--it has been the Kennedy Court all along and now both are dead; it's the Trump Court now and is illegitimate just like the stolen election of 2000 and the stolen so-called Supreme Court seat. Thanks, Russia, for your accomplishment!
3
Play to win. Ignore votes by dems running for election in red states for confirmation. You can't peel off enough republicans to offset defections.
No foolish litmus tests please.
It's got to be a long game centering on retaking the senate by any means in 2018, and building that momentum into 2020.
Should the Democratic party get it's act together and utilize it's majority to regain the senate, no conservative judges of any sort appointed.
And pray, even if you are an agnostic, for the health and stamina of the remaining four. That they last past 2020.
2
Given how much Gorsuch tilts the Supreme Court towards business and shareholder interests, the white working class is going to find out just how expensive it is to own the libs. It's a luxury purchase they couldn't afford, but they'll paying for it the rest of their lives (and their children's lives as well).
1
Well put, Tom!
Don't elect people who will pass repressive, discriminatory, and unconstitutional laws and we won't be turning to the Supreme Court to defend ourselves from them.
3
All Americans of European background, see the writing on the wall, and are circling the wagons! They are scared of the increasing demographic changes, and this is exemplified now in a Court that is shifting far right, too! E Pluribus Unum is dead! Sad!!!
2
Let us dispense with the charade that these Justices have any special insight into the constitution. The Supreme Court is a deeply partisan institution where most of the Justices vote according to the party line that appointed them with a few oops like Souter. So when the court had a liberal majority, the Justices created many rights out of thin air, a job Congress should be doing, but has shirked trying to pander to everyone. Maybe if some of these rights are rescinded, the Congress will go back to doing its job. Other issues are bread and butter party issues like the unions. The only unions this country has left are the public sector unions, the worst kind for the workers who least need them. So of course a Republican supreme court majority will clip the wings of the unions. But this is all politics as usual and Democrats can scarcely complain.
1
In short, high court has already moved far to right this year, Kennedy retirement more shocking than transformative—who will care enough to vote November 6 is the Big Q.
2
I hope the media will start hammering home that a conservative Supreme Court does not look at the constitution in the same way as the majority of Americans.
They are not "neutral" ---the conservative members of the court consistently rule in preference of corporate America.
It's as is human beings, in their minds, exist only as serfs for the business class.
6
Speak for yourself. Plenty of Americans want the SCOTUS to stick to the law and not push their own ideology.
Alfred E. Neuman and I refuse to worry.
Our country is now in the good hands of Donald Trump, a U.S. Congress and a Supreme Court that recognizes him as as a mentally sound President on the basis of his Montreal Cognitive Test score.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/trump-health-exam-doctor-...
2
The graph that shows the split of votes on all the 5-4 or 5-3 decisions says it all. Any time there is a contentious issue, the conservative judges are on the majority more than 75% of the time. The extreme conservatives have always complained that the court was too "liberal," but it has always been more conservative. There was an opportunity to finally move the court in a progressive direction, but Mitch McConnel stole that from the American public.
I can't help but feel that conservatives only believe in the constitution and government when it goes there way... Regardless of how the rest of the country feels.
3
We need to repeat the point: the current GOP is not “conservative”. It is reactionary, extreme, ideologically driven. Conservatives are leaving the party. Conservatives oppose many of the principles guiding the GOP. Conservatives do no favor theocracy, for example. Conservatives oppose the role of government in our private lives. Conservatives oppose huge deficits. Conservatives oppose friendlier relationships with a Kim or a Putin than with our Canadian and European allies. Conservatives will not be appointing the Kennedy replacement.
8
Exactly. They are not "conservative;" they are right-wing extremists dedicated to advancing the interests of their oligarch patrons.
1
Way off base with this article. The court is not left, right, or conservative, liberal. The court is there to be constitutional and interpret issues based on the constitution. The promoting and fear mongering within the media and political circles is undermining this crucial branch of our government.
4
The key word in your comment is "interpret". That is why the Court is left, right, conservative, liberal. "interpretation" is open to interpretation.
6
I'd argue that the court is defined by its intellectual honesty. My personal opinion is that textual originalism (Scalia's hallmark) is dubious and prone to abuse. It's a little like evolutionary psychology: who knows what people actually were thinking hundreds of years ago, and why shouldn't we deliberate our laws in the context of the modern day?
One thing is clear: the Roberts court, with its ideologically conservative majority, has chosen to routinely interpret laws in ways that weaken our democratic principles and erode civil rights. In particular, the court ruled against the Federal Election Commission in three very important cases (McConnell vs FEC, McCutcheon vs FEC, Citizens United vs FEC) which opened up the floodgates of big money into our politics. History will not smile upon this shameful chapter of the Court's history.
3
Way off base with this comment. The court is not supposed to be left, right, or conservative, liberal. The court is supposed to be there to be constitutional and interpret issues based on the constitution. However, corrupt justices like Thomas and nationalist pawns like Gorsuch have ruined any such reputation the court may have once had.
4
This is the reason that 'in for life' appointments have to be scuttled. The court should only have a ten year or, at the most, a 15 year term. The judges are supposed to be above politics, but this has never been really possible. Term limits may not make it less so, but could control 'who's on first'.
4
All is not lost for the Democrats. We have one powerful ally - President Trump. Pro life Republicans such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would have a hard time explaining to their constituents how they voted to confirm a SC justice who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet that is exactly the type of justice Trump said he was going to nominate. In fact, he said he wasn't going to nominate any other kind. 'You don't get rid of Roe, you don't get on the court.'
Then there's retiring Senators Corker and Flake. Two men who the President took insulted many times would probably delight in sticking a finger in the eye of the man who so verbally abused them abused them. Who can say for sure that Sen. McCain's vote against the abolishment of the ACA wasn't in part due to the questioning of his manhood by a draft dodger.
Finally - and this is the least likely scenario - maybe, just maybe, there's Republican Senator who REALLY IS against changing the Supreme Court right before an election just like they all said in 2016. I doubt it, but sometimes miracles do happen. Just ask Nick Foles.
5
Of the four Senators mentioned, none will vote against the monied interests that are buying this SC.
3
The supreme court is no longer legitimate. The last justice appointed was a seat stolen by McDonnell and appointed by a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and got elected through the electoral college by fraud and collusion with a foreign adversary. The next justice appointed will be no more legitimate than the last. Our country repeatedly votes for democrats with the democratic candidate winning the popular vote in the last 7 out of eight elections but through FBI interference, Supreme Court interference, and Russian collusion, the reigns of power are again and again handed to conservative Republicans; against the will of the people. This is not what democracy looks like. There is no reason for the people to accept this.
20
If only Gorsuch had been a moral man, he would have refused the nomination until after Garland had been considered. But alas, just another Republican.
2
What is new? Republican presidents appoint judges that support 'their vision' and democratic presidents appoint judges that support 'their vision'. It is impossible to imagine that B. Obama would have nominated someone such as Roberts to the court. Similarly, GW. Bush would not have nominated someone like Ginsburg. Both Roberts and Ginsberg are exceptionally talented and bright personalities.
Every appointment made by the president (Republican or Democratic) will be in line with the people who voted for them. No surprise.
2
True enough. However, the well has been poisoned by at best, unethical, at worst' unconstitutional or criminal behavior by Republicans, and not just in matters of the SCOTUS.
It's going to be some time before we get back to political behavior that is in any way normal in a positive way.
1
What's new is that McConnell literally stole a Supreme Court appointment away from a sitting President and gave it to the hard-right. Gorsuch has no business sitting on that court. Furthermore, Obama did not attempt to nominate a "liberal" to the court, he attempted to nominate a moderate. Someone who would consider both sides of an issue and make his determination based on the law, not on ideology. Gorsuch is strictly about ideology. That's what's new. And it may well prove to be the final nail in the coffin of democracy.
1
I hope that no Democrats vote for Trumps appointments until his criminal investigation is over. Then Trump should be made to seat Judge Garland first. I do not see much of a Democratic resistance though, they have given Trump votes for his millionaire tax giveaway, increasing military budget from $620 to $700 billion this year and helped confirm a CIA torturer.
7
GOP White House. GOP House of Reps. GOP Senate. GOP SCOTUS.
Inadvisable to say the least.
7
What matters is that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, and will remain so for as long as Neil Gorsuch* has a seat on it.
11
What about RGB, publically indicated her opposition to Trump, is SHE impartial? She is a joke and hopefully will be off the bench soon, one way or another
1
You miss his point. Garland's seat was stolen from us by McConnell. Ginsberg didn't steal her seat. If Gorsuch was a moral man, he would have refused any nomination until Garland's had been considered. McConnell is a traitor.
2
That the crude and ignorant liar occupying the Oval Office — thank you very much, Electoral College! — is now afforded yet another opportunity to appoint a SC justice is beyond comprehension, but the real responsibility lies with Mitch McConnell, whose astonishingly arrogant act of denying Merrick Garland so much as a courtesy hearing brought us to this point. What McConnell has engineered is virtually a re-enactment of Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court, but with two differences: 1) McConnell’s plan did not increase the number of justices, and 2) McConnell’s plan worked.
6
McConnell could go down as one of the major reasons, for the failure of this republic.
5
Mitch McConnell feared a liberal Supreme Court when Scalia died. Even he thought Hilary was going to win and fill upcoming vacancies.
1
Elections have consequences. Even for Democrats, liberals and progressives who always cry foul when their own political tactics are used against them.
4
Yes, angry progressives should thank Harry Reid. He didn't just obstruct everything under Obama, he messed up royally on this one.
The United States of America, Inc. now controls the country.
What we now have is a reincarnation of the Confederate Grand Old Plantation and Robber Baron Era where the money owners have all the rights which the Supreme Gilded Court will faithfully enforce while occasionally handing out racist, religious red meat for the Grand Old Peasants to chew, like a half-baked Muslim travel ban for white supremacists, abortion restrictions for religious lunatics and national shooting gallery 'free-dumb' so Americans can slaughter each other in the streets as economic opportunity is destroyed by corporate hegemony, monopolies and moneyed rule of law.
Heckuva' job, Russian-Republican voters, you have formally flushed America down a Dickensian toilet.
The Party of Stupid scores another deplorable goal.
22
If there were Democrats running all branches of government then you may have some validity in your assessment. However facts and historical precedent contradict your statements.
1
What does the south have to do with this?!
1
How important was the loss of the last election? Instead of a 5/4 liberal court, moving towards 6/3, the opposite is now the case.
This is the dream of the far right. Target #1, Roe. Target #2, Obegefell. They are going away. Theocracy - better get used to it.
9
I guess we should dispense with the charade and remove the blindfolds and balances from all the Justice statues now.
It's mighty hard to keep cynicism at bay these days no matter how hard I try.
14
We are seeing the end result of 30+ years of unflagging right-wing efforts on every level of government from dog catcher to President. Dark money, gerrymandering, disregard of precedent (Merrick Garland), lies, outrageous propaganda, etc.
The water is almost boiling -- do the frogs realize it yet?
15
No, the frogs remain oblivious, because the right-wingers also engineered an undereducated, complacent populace they knew would be more easily manipulated. The proof is in the water, not the pudding.
11
The way things are going, 'Liberty and justice for all' will soon be a quaint distant memory. A mid-term election has never felt so important. Let's get a 90 plus % turnout and see what this country is really all about.
3
Justices aren't supposed to be conservative or liberal and their decisions shouldn't be left or right. Their job is to decide technical legal questions. Politics should be left to Congress and the President.
7
So we lose a moderate conservative and will undoubtedly gain a hard right "originalist" theocrat for the next 39 years. The average age span when our constitution was written was 35-40 years.
Term limits on every office, including the Supreme Court. 20 for the court, 16 for senate, 12 for house and 8 for executive. (Of course, Trump is already looking for ways to extend his reign like his pals Putin and Kim.)
8
So, the Supreme Court is now nothing more or less than a political playground? It's us vs. them all the time on nearly every issue? Isn't this supposed to be the court of last resort, where decisions are made on the merits, not on how you can please your "base?" How did we come to such a place where the SCOTUS is nothing but another place for political hacks to alter the laws of the land?
11
Because our .01% American oligarchs have invested 30+ years and untold $ to ensure that very outcome.
21
Agreed. Sadly. This was a concerted effort and they've won. For now. Hopefully, not forever. But I fear I won't live long enough to see our nation return to its roots....
7
Clyde, it would have been more than a political playground, had Merrick Garland been given the opportunity to serve as Associate Justice of SCOTUS.
When control of Congress is wrested from its ruling band of thieves (when, not if), we will see if that body is capable of amending the Constitution to repair the cracks the GOP has artfully exploited - to permit a President to pardon himself, to consider bribes “free speech”, to filibuster the appointment of SCOTUS justices.
After surviving two world wars the biggest threat facing the U.S. isn’t a foreign enemy but rot from within. May the Founders be forgiven, if they underestimated the depravity of which post-Enlightenment humans are capable.
10
Surprisingly (well not really), although after the last general election we knew that probably someone on the aging Centerist/ Left Wing of the Supreme court would, in all likelihood, retire or pass away within the four year span of DJT's Administration. But rather then spend our time organizing ourselves, we Liberals decide to spend valuable time squabbling and pointing fingers at each other. Well, this is what happens when a political Party forgets it's primary function (wining and holding onto the good graces of the electorate) and instead, spends most of it's time and energies in intra-party blood letting.
But hey, it takes discipline, compromise and vision for a Party that is out of power to win back the electorate that it has confused and disappointed enough to get itself kicked out of office-And currenlty the Democrats seemingly lack all three. So enjoy the breast beating Liberals, because unless we organize ourselves and are willing to work together-That's all we will have left to look forward to, for many years to come.
3
No one seriously argues that the Court has not been moving towards the right in the past twenty years or more. When it comes to abortion/women's rights, criminal procedure, voting rights, property rights, political speech, religious issues, workers' rights, affirmative action, you name it (except for the outlier -- recognition of sexual differences) the Court has voted in cases in ways that please social conservatives and corporate interests. Legal scholars have recognized for years that the modern Court tends to be personal and political in its interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Kennedy was no exception. I am not particularly worked up about his retirement. He helped make the Court as conservative as it is. A new appointment will simply help the Court move more quickly to define our rights conservatively. It is now up to progressives to get the votes out for governors and state legislatures, to bring their causes to state courts, so that the mess in our federal courts can be avoided as much as possible.
1
I prefer a conservative SCOTUS; it prevents justices from making up the laws as they go along. That's not how laws are created in the US. If justices want to create new interpretations of laws or force their ideology-du-jour on everyone, let them run for elected office.
3
Conservatives seem to be inventing laws, such as coming up with the idea of the 2nd Amendment as a personal right to carry firearms, even though its first words are "A well-regulated militia..."
Nowhere do I get that interpretation. It's important to understand historical contexts.
The Constitution was intended as a document to go forward into future eras, not as a stale document, only intended to exist when it was written. As such, it has to be interpreted in present contexts.
5
If you believe that conservative justices don't "make law" then, with all due respect, you aren't very knowledgeable about Supreme Court history and decisions.
1