History Will Judge John Roberts if His Court's Steady Stream of 5-4 Pro-GOP Decisions Continues

[dalton99a]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/john-roberts-history-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html

History Will Judge John Roberts if His Court’s Steady Stream of 5–4 Pro-GOP Decisions Continues
By Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono, and Sheldon Whitehouse
Oct 16, 20184:27 PM

....

Preparing for the Kavanaugh hearings, we reviewed all the Roberts court’s decisions in civil cases. There were 212 5–4 or 5–3 decisions. Of those 212 cases, the right wing of the court voted en bloc to form the majority in 79 cases. Of those 79 cases, big Republican interests won 92 percent of the time. That’s 73 cases. In all of those 73 cases, there was a clearly apparent Republican political interest. And in every one of those 73 cases with a political payload, the Republican interest won.

How were those big Republican interests served? The Roberts Five have opened the floodgates of Republican-friendly unlimited money into our elections, eliminated historic voting rights protections for Democrat-leaning voters, sanctioned voter suppression, and turned a blind eye to partisan gerrymandering, all helping achieve Republican electoral victories. They’ve made it harder for the government to regulate corporations, easier for polluters to pollute, and increasingly difficult for individuals to get their day in court, where a civil jury of one’s peers can protect individuals against the excesses of private wealth and power. Thanks to the Roberts Five, it is ever easier to discriminate against minorities, while corporations and right-wing special interests like the National Rifle Association regularly win constitutional protections unimaginable to the founders.

The Kavanaugh nomination was riven with special interest infiltration into the process. The vetting of potential nominees was completely outsourced to the Federalist Society and its political gatekeeper Leonard Leo. Kavanaugh had given more than 50 speeches to the Federalist Society since becoming a circuit court judge; he auditioned, and he got the part.

The big funders of the Federalist Society show who is behind this judicial nomination assembly line. To the extent its funders are public (many are secret), they come as no surprise: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Scaife Foundations—a who’s-who of big Republican influencers.

....

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

1. if there were any doubt about Kavanaugh's political leanings, they were visible

at the hearing with Dr. Ford.



His diatribe about Hillary and Soros and all the other liberal forces aligned against him should have disqualified him, as was his total lack of judicial temperament.

There are now five permanent votes for the bad guys on the SCOTUS. Kennedy wasn't great, but he was something. Kavanaugh is just a political flack.

[FBaggins]

2. That's a pretty weak shot

The same stats say that the court split 5-4/5-3 212 times and barely a third of those split along partisan lines.

Add to that the fact that the court hears almost 100 cases per year (out of several thousand requests), and that hardly backs up a claim of "steady stream of pro-GOP 5-4 decisions".

I would bet that we'll see lots more with Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy, but the piece is at best premature.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Thanks for the critical thinking.

[Lucky Luciano]

4. Are you sure? They said 79 cases had a specific partisan bent,

...so it seems that 79 is the correct number to look at.

[FBaggins]

5. Not quite

They said that 79 of the 5-4 or 5-3 cases were decided by the five conservatives and that 73 of those 79 were of "clearly republican interest".

But there were 212 5-4/5-3 cases... which tells us that the five most conservative judges didn't even control the majority of the single-vote decisions. They don't even bother to identify how many of those cases had a side that was a clearly identifiable preference for Republicans. Nor did they evaluate how many times there was a clear political interest in the outcome of a case yet the decision was 7-2... or even unanimous.

If you knew nothing about the Supreme Court and read this article... would you be likely to believe that roughly half of their decisions (including lots where Republicans/Democrats disagree on what the outcome should be) are unanimous? Of course not... you would think that there was a multi-year track record of political decisions with five Republican judges riding roughshod over the rest of the court.

[Lucky Luciano]

6. Oh ok. I read it as 79 had a clear republican interest.

...and 73 were decided by the 5 thugs.

It does not quite say that. Gotcha