Doesn't the system of the Supreme Court oppose justice? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat would happen if the same person were elected both President and Vice President?Why doesn't a conservative majority SCOTUS repeal Roe v. Wade?Supreme Court Justice Appointment Time FrameSupreme Court Justice Importance of Party AffiliationWhy is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views?Does substantive due process apply to the Second Amendment?Can the Chief Justice be demoted to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?What requirements are there for becoming a supreme court justice?When would a new US Supreme Court justice start work?Arrest a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Can this transistor (2N2222) take 6 V on emitter-base? Am I reading the datasheet incorrectly?

Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic

What is the difference between 'contrib' and 'non-free' packages repositories?

Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation

How did scripture get the name bible?

Which acid/base does a strong base/acid react when added to a buffer solution?

Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?

Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - what are the religious implications?

How to compactly explain secondary and tertiary characters without resorting to stereotypes?

Why did early computer designers eschew integers?

Why can't we say "I have been having a dog"?

My singleton can be called multiple times

How to find if SQL server backup is encrypted with TDE without restoring the backup

Upgrading From a 9 Speed Sora Derailleur?

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

Another proof that dividing by 0 does not exist -- is it right?

How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?

How can I prove that a state of equilibrium is unstable?

Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the 90s code?

Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?

Find a path from s to t using as few red nodes as possible

Why does the freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?

Does Germany produce more waste than the US?



Doesn't the system of the Supreme Court oppose justice?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat would happen if the same person were elected both President and Vice President?Why doesn't a conservative majority SCOTUS repeal Roe v. Wade?Supreme Court Justice Appointment Time FrameSupreme Court Justice Importance of Party AffiliationWhy is the Supreme Court not balanced in terms of their political views?Does substantive due process apply to the Second Amendment?Can the Chief Justice be demoted to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?What requirements are there for becoming a supreme court justice?When would a new US Supreme Court justice start work?Arrest a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court?










11















I'm new to US politics and the Judicial Branch in the US.
First to clarify:
I know that members of the supreme court get chosen by the president and therefore often share the same political views. I'm also aware of the fact that no person can be completly objective and politically neutral.
But:
Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced? In my understanding it is the job of the Supreme Court to judge on certain cases on the base of the US constitution. But if some radical person gets chosen to join the Supreme Court, couldn't this person vote based on their personal beliefs instead of the US constitution?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Could you clarify the question a bit more? As I read it right now, it sounds like you're asking whether human beings tend to favor their own opinions, which is true but not really specific to the US Supreme Court.

    – Deolater
    Mar 21 at 14:03















11















I'm new to US politics and the Judicial Branch in the US.
First to clarify:
I know that members of the supreme court get chosen by the president and therefore often share the same political views. I'm also aware of the fact that no person can be completly objective and politically neutral.
But:
Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced? In my understanding it is the job of the Supreme Court to judge on certain cases on the base of the US constitution. But if some radical person gets chosen to join the Supreme Court, couldn't this person vote based on their personal beliefs instead of the US constitution?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Could you clarify the question a bit more? As I read it right now, it sounds like you're asking whether human beings tend to favor their own opinions, which is true but not really specific to the US Supreme Court.

    – Deolater
    Mar 21 at 14:03













11












11








11








I'm new to US politics and the Judicial Branch in the US.
First to clarify:
I know that members of the supreme court get chosen by the president and therefore often share the same political views. I'm also aware of the fact that no person can be completly objective and politically neutral.
But:
Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced? In my understanding it is the job of the Supreme Court to judge on certain cases on the base of the US constitution. But if some radical person gets chosen to join the Supreme Court, couldn't this person vote based on their personal beliefs instead of the US constitution?










share|improve this question
















I'm new to US politics and the Judicial Branch in the US.
First to clarify:
I know that members of the supreme court get chosen by the president and therefore often share the same political views. I'm also aware of the fact that no person can be completly objective and politically neutral.
But:
Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced? In my understanding it is the job of the Supreme Court to judge on certain cases on the base of the US constitution. But if some radical person gets chosen to join the Supreme Court, couldn't this person vote based on their personal beliefs instead of the US constitution?







united-states constitution supreme-court






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 21 at 9:55







SethFrkinRollins

















asked Mar 21 at 9:33









SethFrkinRollinsSethFrkinRollins

8617




8617







  • 4





    Could you clarify the question a bit more? As I read it right now, it sounds like you're asking whether human beings tend to favor their own opinions, which is true but not really specific to the US Supreme Court.

    – Deolater
    Mar 21 at 14:03












  • 4





    Could you clarify the question a bit more? As I read it right now, it sounds like you're asking whether human beings tend to favor their own opinions, which is true but not really specific to the US Supreme Court.

    – Deolater
    Mar 21 at 14:03







4




4





Could you clarify the question a bit more? As I read it right now, it sounds like you're asking whether human beings tend to favor their own opinions, which is true but not really specific to the US Supreme Court.

– Deolater
Mar 21 at 14:03





Could you clarify the question a bit more? As I read it right now, it sounds like you're asking whether human beings tend to favor their own opinions, which is true but not really specific to the US Supreme Court.

– Deolater
Mar 21 at 14:03










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















13














Those on the Supreme Court are appointed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, as specified in the US Constitution. In practice, this means that the President nominates a person and they go to one or more Senate hearings to be examined by the members of the Senate. Exactly what number of votes are needed to gain the consent of the Senate is up to the Senate, but currently it's a simple majority.



Once a person has been appointed to the Supreme Court, they are there for a life term. This was a provision meant to de-politicize the Supreme Court, hoping that without the threat of losing their nomination, justices would be able to rule with regard only for the law and without regard for politics. However, like all appointed officials, Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and in fact the only impeachment of a Supreme Court justice in history was on accusation of political bias in their lower court rulings (Samuel Chase). This is not something that was considered often in the past, since the court simply was not as likely to rule on political lines - most Supreme Court decisions are not decided by one vote, but there is a perception that more cases are being split 5-4 along political lines. However, even if Congress was inclined to impeach justices, I think impeaching Supreme Court members for alleged political bias in rulings would be another "nuclear option," in that whatever party does it first will be the recipient of it when the other party regains power, and you never know exactly what the future holds and whether or not one party will have enough of a majority in both houses to impeach and convict without having to cross party lines. It's also difficult to pursue, since it requires 2/3 of Senators to vote for in favor of conviction to be successful.



One more thing, in response to "Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced?" If you watch a Supreme Court hearing on a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate does tend to grill them on their opinions on certain political issues. Usually, the nominee will say something to the effect of "I won't rule on a hypothetical case." This may sound like dodging the question (and is that too), but it's a good response for a judge - they do not rule based on their opinion of a topic, but based on the actual facts of the case in front of them. Even if a Supreme Court judge has a strong conviction about a political issue, a good judge does not allow their personal bias to affect their rulings.






share|improve this answer

























  • If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

    – Hannover Fist
    Mar 21 at 17:38






  • 20





    @Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

    – Obie 2.0
    Mar 21 at 17:44






  • 8





    Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

    – John Bollinger
    Mar 21 at 17:45






  • 1





    "more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

    – eyeballfrog
    Mar 21 at 20:09











  • Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

    – reirab
    Mar 21 at 21:42


















28














SCOTUS famously works very well together and there are several enforced rules and traditions that get this going. But first, statistically, the 5-4 decisions are actually very rare, with the combined 5-4 and 5-3 decisions making 14% of the case decisions, compared to the 57% of cases that resulted in a 9-0 decision in the 2016-2017 session. Of the remaining cases a more stable majority is often more normal than the narrow majority (combined 29% of cases are 7-2 or 8-1). However, the reason this doesn't seem the case is that the cases that are 5-4 decisions are by their nature, very divisive topics in the United States and thus tend to get talked about more than the more boring and more firmly decided cases (Though this isn't always the case... the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case was expected to be a 5-4 decision but the court decided in a 7-2 decision.).



Now, behind the scenes, the Supreme Court get along famously and the Justices tend to be very familial with each other. Among the traditions is that they share a dinner before the State of the Union together (RBG famously attributed the wine to the reason she dozed off during an Obama speech) and will always eat lunch together when in session. This also has an added benefit to demonstrate how they form these strong bonds: The newest justice on the bench is in charge of the lunch menu and what the cafeteria makes on any given day. This actually forces the friendships, as, in order to do a successful job, the new Justice must meet with the other 8 members of the court, discuss a highly opinion driven topic (but not a very politically driven topic), and come to an agreeable solution that can satisfy all 9 justices. RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) might love her some Meat Lover's deep dish pizza, but Thompson cannot stand pizza. What's poor Brett (at time of writing) to do?



RBG, who is famously one of the most liberal SCOTUS justices on the Bench was noted for her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most Conservative members on the bench. Their opinions rarely agreed with each other. But they were the closest friends in real life, and were frequently seen going to the Opera together as they both enjoyed the medium. She reportedly took his death very hard. The Supreme Court has a lot of internal behind the scenes tricks to impose a feeling that we can disagree, but we still get along well with each other.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

    – Malvolio
    Mar 21 at 23:28











  • Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

    – R. Schmitz
    Mar 22 at 10:23












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39635%2fdoesnt-the-system-of-the-supreme-court-oppose-justice%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13














Those on the Supreme Court are appointed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, as specified in the US Constitution. In practice, this means that the President nominates a person and they go to one or more Senate hearings to be examined by the members of the Senate. Exactly what number of votes are needed to gain the consent of the Senate is up to the Senate, but currently it's a simple majority.



Once a person has been appointed to the Supreme Court, they are there for a life term. This was a provision meant to de-politicize the Supreme Court, hoping that without the threat of losing their nomination, justices would be able to rule with regard only for the law and without regard for politics. However, like all appointed officials, Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and in fact the only impeachment of a Supreme Court justice in history was on accusation of political bias in their lower court rulings (Samuel Chase). This is not something that was considered often in the past, since the court simply was not as likely to rule on political lines - most Supreme Court decisions are not decided by one vote, but there is a perception that more cases are being split 5-4 along political lines. However, even if Congress was inclined to impeach justices, I think impeaching Supreme Court members for alleged political bias in rulings would be another "nuclear option," in that whatever party does it first will be the recipient of it when the other party regains power, and you never know exactly what the future holds and whether or not one party will have enough of a majority in both houses to impeach and convict without having to cross party lines. It's also difficult to pursue, since it requires 2/3 of Senators to vote for in favor of conviction to be successful.



One more thing, in response to "Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced?" If you watch a Supreme Court hearing on a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate does tend to grill them on their opinions on certain political issues. Usually, the nominee will say something to the effect of "I won't rule on a hypothetical case." This may sound like dodging the question (and is that too), but it's a good response for a judge - they do not rule based on their opinion of a topic, but based on the actual facts of the case in front of them. Even if a Supreme Court judge has a strong conviction about a political issue, a good judge does not allow their personal bias to affect their rulings.






share|improve this answer

























  • If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

    – Hannover Fist
    Mar 21 at 17:38






  • 20





    @Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

    – Obie 2.0
    Mar 21 at 17:44






  • 8





    Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

    – John Bollinger
    Mar 21 at 17:45






  • 1





    "more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

    – eyeballfrog
    Mar 21 at 20:09











  • Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

    – reirab
    Mar 21 at 21:42















13














Those on the Supreme Court are appointed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, as specified in the US Constitution. In practice, this means that the President nominates a person and they go to one or more Senate hearings to be examined by the members of the Senate. Exactly what number of votes are needed to gain the consent of the Senate is up to the Senate, but currently it's a simple majority.



Once a person has been appointed to the Supreme Court, they are there for a life term. This was a provision meant to de-politicize the Supreme Court, hoping that without the threat of losing their nomination, justices would be able to rule with regard only for the law and without regard for politics. However, like all appointed officials, Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and in fact the only impeachment of a Supreme Court justice in history was on accusation of political bias in their lower court rulings (Samuel Chase). This is not something that was considered often in the past, since the court simply was not as likely to rule on political lines - most Supreme Court decisions are not decided by one vote, but there is a perception that more cases are being split 5-4 along political lines. However, even if Congress was inclined to impeach justices, I think impeaching Supreme Court members for alleged political bias in rulings would be another "nuclear option," in that whatever party does it first will be the recipient of it when the other party regains power, and you never know exactly what the future holds and whether or not one party will have enough of a majority in both houses to impeach and convict without having to cross party lines. It's also difficult to pursue, since it requires 2/3 of Senators to vote for in favor of conviction to be successful.



One more thing, in response to "Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced?" If you watch a Supreme Court hearing on a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate does tend to grill them on their opinions on certain political issues. Usually, the nominee will say something to the effect of "I won't rule on a hypothetical case." This may sound like dodging the question (and is that too), but it's a good response for a judge - they do not rule based on their opinion of a topic, but based on the actual facts of the case in front of them. Even if a Supreme Court judge has a strong conviction about a political issue, a good judge does not allow their personal bias to affect their rulings.






share|improve this answer

























  • If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

    – Hannover Fist
    Mar 21 at 17:38






  • 20





    @Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

    – Obie 2.0
    Mar 21 at 17:44






  • 8





    Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

    – John Bollinger
    Mar 21 at 17:45






  • 1





    "more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

    – eyeballfrog
    Mar 21 at 20:09











  • Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

    – reirab
    Mar 21 at 21:42













13












13








13







Those on the Supreme Court are appointed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, as specified in the US Constitution. In practice, this means that the President nominates a person and they go to one or more Senate hearings to be examined by the members of the Senate. Exactly what number of votes are needed to gain the consent of the Senate is up to the Senate, but currently it's a simple majority.



Once a person has been appointed to the Supreme Court, they are there for a life term. This was a provision meant to de-politicize the Supreme Court, hoping that without the threat of losing their nomination, justices would be able to rule with regard only for the law and without regard for politics. However, like all appointed officials, Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and in fact the only impeachment of a Supreme Court justice in history was on accusation of political bias in their lower court rulings (Samuel Chase). This is not something that was considered often in the past, since the court simply was not as likely to rule on political lines - most Supreme Court decisions are not decided by one vote, but there is a perception that more cases are being split 5-4 along political lines. However, even if Congress was inclined to impeach justices, I think impeaching Supreme Court members for alleged political bias in rulings would be another "nuclear option," in that whatever party does it first will be the recipient of it when the other party regains power, and you never know exactly what the future holds and whether or not one party will have enough of a majority in both houses to impeach and convict without having to cross party lines. It's also difficult to pursue, since it requires 2/3 of Senators to vote for in favor of conviction to be successful.



One more thing, in response to "Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced?" If you watch a Supreme Court hearing on a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate does tend to grill them on their opinions on certain political issues. Usually, the nominee will say something to the effect of "I won't rule on a hypothetical case." This may sound like dodging the question (and is that too), but it's a good response for a judge - they do not rule based on their opinion of a topic, but based on the actual facts of the case in front of them. Even if a Supreme Court judge has a strong conviction about a political issue, a good judge does not allow their personal bias to affect their rulings.






share|improve this answer















Those on the Supreme Court are appointed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, as specified in the US Constitution. In practice, this means that the President nominates a person and they go to one or more Senate hearings to be examined by the members of the Senate. Exactly what number of votes are needed to gain the consent of the Senate is up to the Senate, but currently it's a simple majority.



Once a person has been appointed to the Supreme Court, they are there for a life term. This was a provision meant to de-politicize the Supreme Court, hoping that without the threat of losing their nomination, justices would be able to rule with regard only for the law and without regard for politics. However, like all appointed officials, Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and in fact the only impeachment of a Supreme Court justice in history was on accusation of political bias in their lower court rulings (Samuel Chase). This is not something that was considered often in the past, since the court simply was not as likely to rule on political lines - most Supreme Court decisions are not decided by one vote, but there is a perception that more cases are being split 5-4 along political lines. However, even if Congress was inclined to impeach justices, I think impeaching Supreme Court members for alleged political bias in rulings would be another "nuclear option," in that whatever party does it first will be the recipient of it when the other party regains power, and you never know exactly what the future holds and whether or not one party will have enough of a majority in both houses to impeach and convict without having to cross party lines. It's also difficult to pursue, since it requires 2/3 of Senators to vote for in favor of conviction to be successful.



One more thing, in response to "Aren't clear opinions on certain topics (e.g. abortion) hurting actual justice to be enforced?" If you watch a Supreme Court hearing on a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate does tend to grill them on their opinions on certain political issues. Usually, the nominee will say something to the effect of "I won't rule on a hypothetical case." This may sound like dodging the question (and is that too), but it's a good response for a judge - they do not rule based on their opinion of a topic, but based on the actual facts of the case in front of them. Even if a Supreme Court judge has a strong conviction about a political issue, a good judge does not allow their personal bias to affect their rulings.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 21 at 22:34

























answered Mar 21 at 12:14









IllusiveBrianIllusiveBrian

4,6261321




4,6261321












  • If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

    – Hannover Fist
    Mar 21 at 17:38






  • 20





    @Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

    – Obie 2.0
    Mar 21 at 17:44






  • 8





    Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

    – John Bollinger
    Mar 21 at 17:45






  • 1





    "more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

    – eyeballfrog
    Mar 21 at 20:09











  • Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

    – reirab
    Mar 21 at 21:42

















  • If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

    – Hannover Fist
    Mar 21 at 17:38






  • 20





    @Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

    – Obie 2.0
    Mar 21 at 17:44






  • 8





    Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

    – John Bollinger
    Mar 21 at 17:45






  • 1





    "more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

    – eyeballfrog
    Mar 21 at 20:09











  • Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

    – reirab
    Mar 21 at 21:42
















If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

– Hannover Fist
Mar 21 at 17:38





If we actually had "good judges", most SCOTUS decisions wouldn't be a 5-4 split - they should mostly be unanimous.

– Hannover Fist
Mar 21 at 17:38




20




20





@Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

– Obie 2.0
Mar 21 at 17:44





@Hannover - Most decisions are not a 5-4 split.

– Obie 2.0
Mar 21 at 17:44




8




8





Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

– John Bollinger
Mar 21 at 17:45





Only if the laws afforded only a single interpretation for any given set of facts, @HannoverFist. That is rarely true for cases that SCOTUS accepts, even those that it does decide unanimously.

– John Bollinger
Mar 21 at 17:45




1




1





"more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

– eyeballfrog
Mar 21 at 20:09





"more are being split 5-4 along political lines" Is that true?

– eyeballfrog
Mar 21 at 20:09













Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

– reirab
Mar 21 at 21:42





Regarding impeachment, I think it's also important to note that conviction in an impeachment trial requires way more than a simple majority. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. And, unlike the filibuster rule that previously applied to initial confirmations, this rule is part of the U.S. Constitution and changing it would require a supermajority of both houses of Congress and ratification by a full 3/4 of states. So, the standards for impeachment won't be dropped on a whim for partisan reasons like the standards for filibustering nominees were.

– reirab
Mar 21 at 21:42











28














SCOTUS famously works very well together and there are several enforced rules and traditions that get this going. But first, statistically, the 5-4 decisions are actually very rare, with the combined 5-4 and 5-3 decisions making 14% of the case decisions, compared to the 57% of cases that resulted in a 9-0 decision in the 2016-2017 session. Of the remaining cases a more stable majority is often more normal than the narrow majority (combined 29% of cases are 7-2 or 8-1). However, the reason this doesn't seem the case is that the cases that are 5-4 decisions are by their nature, very divisive topics in the United States and thus tend to get talked about more than the more boring and more firmly decided cases (Though this isn't always the case... the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case was expected to be a 5-4 decision but the court decided in a 7-2 decision.).



Now, behind the scenes, the Supreme Court get along famously and the Justices tend to be very familial with each other. Among the traditions is that they share a dinner before the State of the Union together (RBG famously attributed the wine to the reason she dozed off during an Obama speech) and will always eat lunch together when in session. This also has an added benefit to demonstrate how they form these strong bonds: The newest justice on the bench is in charge of the lunch menu and what the cafeteria makes on any given day. This actually forces the friendships, as, in order to do a successful job, the new Justice must meet with the other 8 members of the court, discuss a highly opinion driven topic (but not a very politically driven topic), and come to an agreeable solution that can satisfy all 9 justices. RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) might love her some Meat Lover's deep dish pizza, but Thompson cannot stand pizza. What's poor Brett (at time of writing) to do?



RBG, who is famously one of the most liberal SCOTUS justices on the Bench was noted for her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most Conservative members on the bench. Their opinions rarely agreed with each other. But they were the closest friends in real life, and were frequently seen going to the Opera together as they both enjoyed the medium. She reportedly took his death very hard. The Supreme Court has a lot of internal behind the scenes tricks to impose a feeling that we can disagree, but we still get along well with each other.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

    – Malvolio
    Mar 21 at 23:28











  • Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

    – R. Schmitz
    Mar 22 at 10:23
















28














SCOTUS famously works very well together and there are several enforced rules and traditions that get this going. But first, statistically, the 5-4 decisions are actually very rare, with the combined 5-4 and 5-3 decisions making 14% of the case decisions, compared to the 57% of cases that resulted in a 9-0 decision in the 2016-2017 session. Of the remaining cases a more stable majority is often more normal than the narrow majority (combined 29% of cases are 7-2 or 8-1). However, the reason this doesn't seem the case is that the cases that are 5-4 decisions are by their nature, very divisive topics in the United States and thus tend to get talked about more than the more boring and more firmly decided cases (Though this isn't always the case... the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case was expected to be a 5-4 decision but the court decided in a 7-2 decision.).



Now, behind the scenes, the Supreme Court get along famously and the Justices tend to be very familial with each other. Among the traditions is that they share a dinner before the State of the Union together (RBG famously attributed the wine to the reason she dozed off during an Obama speech) and will always eat lunch together when in session. This also has an added benefit to demonstrate how they form these strong bonds: The newest justice on the bench is in charge of the lunch menu and what the cafeteria makes on any given day. This actually forces the friendships, as, in order to do a successful job, the new Justice must meet with the other 8 members of the court, discuss a highly opinion driven topic (but not a very politically driven topic), and come to an agreeable solution that can satisfy all 9 justices. RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) might love her some Meat Lover's deep dish pizza, but Thompson cannot stand pizza. What's poor Brett (at time of writing) to do?



RBG, who is famously one of the most liberal SCOTUS justices on the Bench was noted for her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most Conservative members on the bench. Their opinions rarely agreed with each other. But they were the closest friends in real life, and were frequently seen going to the Opera together as they both enjoyed the medium. She reportedly took his death very hard. The Supreme Court has a lot of internal behind the scenes tricks to impose a feeling that we can disagree, but we still get along well with each other.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

    – Malvolio
    Mar 21 at 23:28











  • Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

    – R. Schmitz
    Mar 22 at 10:23














28












28








28







SCOTUS famously works very well together and there are several enforced rules and traditions that get this going. But first, statistically, the 5-4 decisions are actually very rare, with the combined 5-4 and 5-3 decisions making 14% of the case decisions, compared to the 57% of cases that resulted in a 9-0 decision in the 2016-2017 session. Of the remaining cases a more stable majority is often more normal than the narrow majority (combined 29% of cases are 7-2 or 8-1). However, the reason this doesn't seem the case is that the cases that are 5-4 decisions are by their nature, very divisive topics in the United States and thus tend to get talked about more than the more boring and more firmly decided cases (Though this isn't always the case... the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case was expected to be a 5-4 decision but the court decided in a 7-2 decision.).



Now, behind the scenes, the Supreme Court get along famously and the Justices tend to be very familial with each other. Among the traditions is that they share a dinner before the State of the Union together (RBG famously attributed the wine to the reason she dozed off during an Obama speech) and will always eat lunch together when in session. This also has an added benefit to demonstrate how they form these strong bonds: The newest justice on the bench is in charge of the lunch menu and what the cafeteria makes on any given day. This actually forces the friendships, as, in order to do a successful job, the new Justice must meet with the other 8 members of the court, discuss a highly opinion driven topic (but not a very politically driven topic), and come to an agreeable solution that can satisfy all 9 justices. RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) might love her some Meat Lover's deep dish pizza, but Thompson cannot stand pizza. What's poor Brett (at time of writing) to do?



RBG, who is famously one of the most liberal SCOTUS justices on the Bench was noted for her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most Conservative members on the bench. Their opinions rarely agreed with each other. But they were the closest friends in real life, and were frequently seen going to the Opera together as they both enjoyed the medium. She reportedly took his death very hard. The Supreme Court has a lot of internal behind the scenes tricks to impose a feeling that we can disagree, but we still get along well with each other.






share|improve this answer















SCOTUS famously works very well together and there are several enforced rules and traditions that get this going. But first, statistically, the 5-4 decisions are actually very rare, with the combined 5-4 and 5-3 decisions making 14% of the case decisions, compared to the 57% of cases that resulted in a 9-0 decision in the 2016-2017 session. Of the remaining cases a more stable majority is often more normal than the narrow majority (combined 29% of cases are 7-2 or 8-1). However, the reason this doesn't seem the case is that the cases that are 5-4 decisions are by their nature, very divisive topics in the United States and thus tend to get talked about more than the more boring and more firmly decided cases (Though this isn't always the case... the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case was expected to be a 5-4 decision but the court decided in a 7-2 decision.).



Now, behind the scenes, the Supreme Court get along famously and the Justices tend to be very familial with each other. Among the traditions is that they share a dinner before the State of the Union together (RBG famously attributed the wine to the reason she dozed off during an Obama speech) and will always eat lunch together when in session. This also has an added benefit to demonstrate how they form these strong bonds: The newest justice on the bench is in charge of the lunch menu and what the cafeteria makes on any given day. This actually forces the friendships, as, in order to do a successful job, the new Justice must meet with the other 8 members of the court, discuss a highly opinion driven topic (but not a very politically driven topic), and come to an agreeable solution that can satisfy all 9 justices. RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) might love her some Meat Lover's deep dish pizza, but Thompson cannot stand pizza. What's poor Brett (at time of writing) to do?



RBG, who is famously one of the most liberal SCOTUS justices on the Bench was noted for her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most Conservative members on the bench. Their opinions rarely agreed with each other. But they were the closest friends in real life, and were frequently seen going to the Opera together as they both enjoyed the medium. She reportedly took his death very hard. The Supreme Court has a lot of internal behind the scenes tricks to impose a feeling that we can disagree, but we still get along well with each other.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 21 at 19:49









Matthew Crumley

1033




1033










answered Mar 21 at 14:06









hszmvhszmv

6,0581926




6,0581926







  • 4





    Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

    – Malvolio
    Mar 21 at 23:28











  • Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

    – R. Schmitz
    Mar 22 at 10:23













  • 4





    Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

    – Malvolio
    Mar 21 at 23:28











  • Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

    – R. Schmitz
    Mar 22 at 10:23








4




4





Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

– Malvolio
Mar 21 at 23:28





Masterpiece Bakery ("the infamous Gay Wedding Cake case") was lopsided because it wasn't a decision on the merits. Whether a state can in fact force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding remains undecided. The ruling of the Court was that the actions of the government were so egregious, that the process denied the plaintiff free exercise. Colorado could actually start all over again, and possibly succeed at getting the wedding catered.

– Malvolio
Mar 21 at 23:28













Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

– R. Schmitz
Mar 22 at 10:23






Using a lesser used word which has more than one meaning and then using it in both ways is a bit confusing. It's mostly used as "in a way that is widely known" here, so just replacing the second usage ("get along famously") with an alternative would make it less ambiguous.

– R. Schmitz
Mar 22 at 10:23


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39635%2fdoesnt-the-system-of-the-supreme-court-oppose-justice%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029