Posted on Jun 27, 2023
Supreme Court rejects controversial Trump-backed election law theory | CNN Politics
389
26
7
4
4
0
1. SCOTUS decision means state and federal courts can have a say in deciding if elections districts are fair or gerrymandered.
2. The decision was 6-3 with conservative Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts joining their liberal colleagues.
2. The decision was 6-3 with conservative Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts joining their liberal colleagues.
Supreme Court rejects controversial Trump-backed election law theory | CNN Politics
Posted from edition.cnn.com
Supreme Court
Donald Trump
Elections
Law
Posted 11 mo ago
Responses: 4
10
10
0
For this and the other decisions that were given recently, why haven't I heard the usual gripes from the left about "Don't expect it with this court", "just another partisan court", and so on? If you listen to the comments from the far-left, every decision should be 6-3 because the left is always railroaded.
Are you saying that -gasp- they try to interpret the Constitutionality of something before them and vote appropriately?
Are you saying that -gasp- they try to interpret the Constitutionality of something before them and vote appropriately?
(10)
(0)
COL Randall C.
I've referenced the Supreme Court as an unbiased Court before. I know those on one side will throw comments at the Conservative Justices and those on the other side will throw stuff at the Liberal Justices.
If there is one ideology the Justices try to adhere to, it's uniformity. While a split ruling (5-4) is what usually gets the most attention by the media, which in turn gives ammunition to the partisans that the court is hopelessly split, if you look at all the cases that have come before them since 2000-2021, the majority of the decisions have been 9-0.
Additionally, if you look at the 'direction' of those decisions (did they go 'liberal' or did they go 'conservative') they are pretty close to an even split between ideologies (it's a 45%/55% split between decisions that had a 'liberal direction' and those that had a 'conservative direction'). What does this mean? The more liberal judges joined with the rest of the Court when they viewed that a "conservative position" on something before them was the correct analysis and the more conservative judges did likewise with "liberal positions".
However, that doesn't fit the partisan narratives, so the Right attacks 'liberal decisions' and the Left attacks 'conservative positions' because someone gets that their issue isn't 'correct' according to the Court. Both are wrong. While the Court is slightly more Conservative in it's opinions, it is by no means some lopsided institution that is dominated by some political ideology - again, the ideology they adhere to is consensus.
If there is one ideology the Justices try to adhere to, it's uniformity. While a split ruling (5-4) is what usually gets the most attention by the media, which in turn gives ammunition to the partisans that the court is hopelessly split, if you look at all the cases that have come before them since 2000-2021, the majority of the decisions have been 9-0.
Additionally, if you look at the 'direction' of those decisions (did they go 'liberal' or did they go 'conservative') they are pretty close to an even split between ideologies (it's a 45%/55% split between decisions that had a 'liberal direction' and those that had a 'conservative direction'). What does this mean? The more liberal judges joined with the rest of the Court when they viewed that a "conservative position" on something before them was the correct analysis and the more conservative judges did likewise with "liberal positions".
However, that doesn't fit the partisan narratives, so the Right attacks 'liberal decisions' and the Left attacks 'conservative positions' because someone gets that their issue isn't 'correct' according to the Court. Both are wrong. While the Court is slightly more Conservative in it's opinions, it is by no means some lopsided institution that is dominated by some political ideology - again, the ideology they adhere to is consensus.
(3)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
COL Randall C. And even here, the three dissects weren't because they disagreed with the majority opinion, it is because they thought it should have been void for mootness and not decided at all.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
That's the course decision. I guess anger Republicans can move to Canada and still vote like I do as an out-of-state resident.
I found this cartoon last night and it would have been beneficial for the USA had President Biden moved to Canada.
I found this cartoon last night and it would have been beneficial for the USA had President Biden moved to Canada.
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
You think that you are electing good people with your way of thinking when you vote, but once these people get into power, they forget about the people who put them in office. I realise that we don't elect scotus but the same applies to most politicians. That woke democrat/comunist, Nancy Pelosi is saying that the supreme court should have term limits. I have a better idea, how about both houses have term limits. Diane Finestein can be a poster child for term limits I'm not for term limits on the supreme court but when you think of judge Ginsburg at the end of her term, its food for thought.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google