User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The One Change John Roberts Can Make to Depoliticize the Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496582
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,592x in 94,421 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The One Change John Roberts Can Make to Depoliticize the Supreme Court

    The One Change John Roberts Can Make to Depoliticize the Supreme Court

    Don't list the names of the Justices in the decision or the dissent, if any- per curiam opinions—anonymous opinions
    ***
    But if Roberts is serious about protecting his fellow jurists from future political attacks, then he must do more than issue stern statements of disapproval. Instead, he should reconsider the way the court conveys its decisions to the public. Specifically, he should make per curiam opinions—anonymous opinions, issued without disclosing the identity of the authoring judge or the voting blocs’ membership—the new standard. Per curiam opinions circumvent the political cues associated with a given justice’s identity and instead allow the court to present its holdings as an institution. Not only would this shield thejustices from being targeted as individuals, but research also shows that it would strengthen public support for the court’s decisions.


    From the Supreme Court’s perspective, political attacks against its members are worrisome, no matter who levies them. Without a mechanism to enforce its holdings, the Supreme Court must rely on the other political branches to respect its decisions. Critiques that frame the court’s behavior as political can erode its perception as a legitimate institution. And without widely accepted public deference, the court is powerless.






    The court has issued per curiam opinions throughout its history, although its use of these opinions has been far from methodical, ranging from landmark cases to the mundane with no rhyme or reason up to now as to why. Systematically removing the identity of the opinions’ authors would convey several benefits. First, peer-reviewed research, conducted by myself and several coauthors, has shown that the use of per curiam opinions strengthens the level of support decisions receive. In a series of survey experiments, we held constant a court opinion’s content—that is, the actual legal holding of the case—but we randomized the identity of the authoring justice. In
    one study, we investigated whether support for a given case was conditioned on the ideology of the authoring justice. In another, we sought to gauge whether the use of per curiam opinions garnered more support compared to cases with an identified author. In both instances, we found that individuals adjust their level of agreement based on their perception of the opinion author rather than the case disposition itself, and per curiam opinions garnered the greatest level of support of all.

    Thoughts?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-21-2020),MMC (03-21-2020)

  3. #2
    Points: 34,558, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 892
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassYour first Group25000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Admiral Ackbar's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    5002
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,897
    Points
    34,558
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    4,270
    Thanked 4,992x in 3,109 Posts
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think in the past 50 years the court has been viewed as legal experts parsing language and legal mumbo jumbo. You guys know you used to not have to even be a lawyer to be on the court. That is still the case but imagine the outcry if you appointed someone now like that. There have been governors, business people on the court before


    And that leads to this question from Allen Ayers of Williamsburg, Va.:
    The United States Constitution contains no prerequisites for appointment to the Supreme Court.

    That is because the court can apply common sense not merly legal theory to cases.s

    To me that is the issue. As long as we are operating under the above frame work there will be issues.
    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"----Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales

  4. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496582
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,592x in 94,421 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar View Post
    I think in the past 50 years the court has been viewed as legal experts parsing language and legal mumbo jumbo. You guys know you used to not have to even be a lawyer to be on the court. That is still the case but imagine the outcry if you appointed someone now like that. There have been governors, business people on the court before


    And that leads to this question from Allen Ayers of Williamsburg, Va.:
    The United States Constitution contains no prerequisites for appointment to the Supreme Court.

    That is because the court can apply common sense not merly legal theory to cases.s

    To me that is the issue. As long as we are operating under the above frame work there will be issues.
    Bolded: it is more complicated than that. First, SCOTUS is not a trial court. It reviews appeals from trial court decisions after the Federal Circuit Appeals court gets a review. SCOTUS is limited to what is in the record.

    Then SCOTUS should focus on Constitutional law and statutory law. Then common sense should come into play so long as it is not uses to skirt the Constitution or statue.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  5. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Meh.....wont matter once Trump replaces Ginsberg with another Conservative Judge. Let the leftness live with the pain.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  6. #5
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Anyone who is familiar with the writing style and vocabulary of the various justices (and of their clerks, for that matter) could probably determine which justice wrote what in a matter of hours. A computer could no doubt do it in minutes or less.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    MMC (03-21-2020)

  8. #6
    Points: 80,720, Level: 69
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,730
    Overall activity: 46.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    countryboy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    28222
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    28,649
    Points
    80,720
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    10,475
    Thanked 21,459x in 13,509 Posts
    Mentioned
    230 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The One Change John Roberts Can Make to Depoliticize the Supreme Court

    Don't list the names of the Justices in the decision or the dissent, if any- per curiam opinions—anonymous opinions

    Thoughts?
    No thanks, I like to know what decisions were made by whom.
    Cutesy Time is OVER

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to countryboy For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (03-21-2020),MMC (03-21-2020)

  10. #7
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The One Change John Roberts Can Make to Depoliticize the Supreme Court

    Don't list the names of the Justices in the decision or the dissent, if any- per curiam opinions—anonymous opinions

    Thoughts?
    It's what they should have always done. Now is a good time to start. Also, quit announcing the vote. A ruling is what it is.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Captdon For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (03-21-2020)

  12. #8
    Points: 23,893, Level: 37
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 457
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Newpublius's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    39140
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Boynton Beach, FL
    Posts
    7,313
    Points
    23,893
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    1,556
    Thanked 4,123x in 2,793 Posts
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar View Post
    I think in the past 50 years the court has been viewed as legal experts parsing language and legal mumbo
    Like they were the Oracle of Delphi even, but the information age has revealed the wizard behind the curtain.

  13. #9
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496582
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,592x in 94,421 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Anyone who is familiar with the writing style and vocabulary of the various justices (and of their clerks, for that matter) could probably determine which justice wrote what in a matter of hours. A computer could no doubt do it in minutes or less.
    So that tells you who wrote the majority opinion and who wrote the dissent, if any. It doesn't tell you who exactly voted which way.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  14. #10
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    So that tells you who wrote the majority opinion and who wrote the dissent, if any. It doesn't tell you who exactly voted which way.
    True, although the voting histories of the various justices on similar or related cases would tell you a good deal of the time - especially when the opinions themselves and the legal reasoning contained therein were taken into account. At any rate, I see no great positive benefit in secret voting.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts