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: 570,493, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    435802
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    170,188
    Points
    570,493
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    101,866
    Thanked 86,783x in 58,236 Posts
    Mentioned
    2282 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

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

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

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

  3. #2

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 20,402, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 348
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassYour first Group10000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Admiral Ackbar's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    2762
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,906
    Points
    20,402
    Level
    34
    Thanks Given
    2,017
    Thanked 2,752x in 1,764 Posts
    Mentioned
    89 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: 570,493, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    435802
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    170,188
    Points
    570,493
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    101,866
    Thanked 86,783x in 58,236 Posts
    Mentioned
    2282 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

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  5. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 228,552, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    49308
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    58,659
    Points
    228,552
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,798
    Thanked 18,303x in 13,884 Posts
    Mentioned
    126 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: 37,286, Level: 47
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,264
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    304899
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    13,357
    Points
    37,286
    Level
    47
    Thanks Given
    2,403
    Thanked 11,003x in 6,351 Posts
    Mentioned
    308 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.
    Arizona...the only state in the country where rain is considered a state of emergency.

    "I live by two words: tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go, and gratitude keeps me from being angry on the way." - Henry Winkler

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

    MMC (03-21-2020)

  8. #6
    Points: 26,754, Level: 39
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 196
    Overall activity: 21.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    countryboy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12050
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    9,584
    Points
    26,754
    Level
    39
    Thanks Given
    3,146
    Thanked 5,282x in 3,607 Posts
    Mentioned
    138 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.

    Progressivism, ideas so good, they have to be mandatory

  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: 57,616, Level: 58
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 734
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocial
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8700
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    26,850
    Points
    57,616
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    45,278
    Thanked 8,704x in 7,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    130 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 freedom and our society and our morals.

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

    Peter1469 (03-21-2020)

  12. #8
    Points: 19,023, Level: 33
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 627
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Newpublius's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    38332
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Boynton Beach, FL
    Posts
    6,346
    Points
    19,023
    Level
    33
    Thanks Given
    1,326
    Thanked 3,315x in 2,260 Posts
    Mentioned
    93 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: 570,493, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    435802
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    170,188
    Points
    570,493
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    101,866
    Thanked 86,783x in 58,236 Posts
    Mentioned
    2282 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

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  14. #10
    Points: 37,286, Level: 47
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,264
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    304899
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    13,357
    Points
    37,286
    Level
    47
    Thanks Given
    2,403
    Thanked 11,003x in 6,351 Posts
    Mentioned
    308 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.
    Arizona...the only state in the country where rain is considered a state of emergency.

    "I live by two words: tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go, and gratitude keeps me from being angry on the way." - Henry Winkler

+ 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

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO