Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades

[onehandle]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — When Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his colleagues on the Supreme Court left for their summer break at the end of June, they marked a milestone: the Roberts court had just completed its fifth term.

In those five years, the court not only moved to the right but also became the most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of four sets of political science data.

And for all the public debate about the confirmation of Elena Kagan or the addition last year of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there is no reason to think they will make a difference in the court’s ideological balance. Indeed, the data show that only one recent replacement altered its direction, that of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, pulling the court to the right.

There is no similar switch on the horizon. That means that Chief Justice Roberts, 55, is settling in for what is likely to be a very long tenure at the head of a court that seems to be entering a period of stability.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html

---

You can thank from the year 2000: Crooked Republicans, A less Conservative SCOTUS, and of course Ralph Nader.

And there's nothing that President Obama can do about it. This is our court for decades.

[JerseygirlCT]

1. Yup

And so many of us were warning about this - beginning in 2000, and continuing as radically right nominees were treated as if they were mainstream jurists and allowed onto the court.

And now we're stuck with the horror of a Roberts court, aided and abetted by the likes of Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

[NJmaverick]

2. We can make sure we keep the Congress Democratic and keep the President in for 2 terms

that will help ensure it doesn't get any worse.

[JerseygirlCT]

3. Even then, we need to keep pushing to abolish the notion that

Obama's choices have to be sufficiently "moderate" so as to avoid pissing off the right in the Senate. Good grief, enough already with the whole "bi-partisan" notion! It cannot exist so long as one side (GOP) has absolutely no interest in anything but seeing the destruction of the Obama administration and democratic (small d) government.

[NJmaverick]

4. We get a Democratic Majority of 60+ and it wouldn't matter anymore

no filibuster would be possible

[JerseygirlCT]

8. That's assuming we can count on all 60

something that's already been proven false.

So long as we include under the umbrella of "Democrat" the likes of Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman (who isn't even a Dem - if he ever was one), etc... we'd need a whole heck of a lot more than 60.

And that 60 is a problem. We really ought to be pushing back against this de facto majority = 60 stuff. Force them to filibuster. Real filibuster. Get out the cots. Make them stand up there and talk. Make them DEMONSTRATE to the public how far they'll go to derail the governing of the country.

Instead, we sit meekly, and speak cautiously, and allow the nomination of abominations like Roberts and Alito, while nominating carefully so as not to offend.

It's nuts.

[NJmaverick]

10. The higher the number the less any one (or two or three) Senators

can hold the party hostage.

[pattmarty]

13. It ain't gonna happen in '10. What will happen is the Dems will lose........

.......seats (pretty much EVERYONE knows this). Let's say, for argument's sake, that the House goes to 220D 215R and the Senate goes 54D 46R. You can argue the amounts, but my story still will remain the same in that it just will be even worse than in the first two years probably making it harder for the Dems to win in 2012. Just my opinion of what will happen. If the Republicans take CONTROL of one or both houses, all bets off.

[w4rma]

39. We had that and the corrupt DLCers in Congress stopped important legislation.

DLC Democrats are worthless in this Party, because they are willing to abuse the filibuster.

[onehandle]

5. Wonderful. Obama can keep the status quo.

And when the White House goes Republican again, they can replace a couple of older Conservatives with more Conservatives.

I predict 50 to 75 years of a Conservative court. The Gore Administration would have been our only chance of changing things.

[NJmaverick]

6. So after President Obama you just give up and don't push for another Democrat?

[onehandle]

9. Of course not. But many court watchers expected a swing left in the last decade.

Then Bush was 'elected.'

Maybe we'll get lucky and have the White house in a couple of decades or so or maybe we won't.

Maybe Ralph Nader will run for President again in a fateful year and campaign in the last weeks of a campaign in... oh, let's say Colorado.

President Bristol Palin.

[defendandprotect]

33. We need to move Obama to the left -- or get another Democratic candidate . . .

[UTUSN]

7. K&R #8 n/t

[glitch]

11. Conservative? Try Fascist. nt

[hollowdweller]

12. Really more partisan than conservative.

I could live with conservative. I wouldn't like it but I could live with a very strict sticking to the constitution and bill of rights.

However in my mind they continually (with the exception of gun rights) rule corporate and gov't power over the individual.

A lot of garden variety Republicans think they are great because of their pro gun rulings but when some of the other stuff they've ruled on comes to light I think they will be upset.

[glitch]

15. Most of the (remaining) garden variety Republicans I know are heavily brainwashed by Fox.

The ones that have dug a little deeper are now Independents.

[MilesColtrane]

21. Yup, they're using the wrong word to describe this court.

Old school conservative judges didn't go back and cherry pick decisions to revisit and overturn in order to advance a pro-corporate/anti-individual rights agenda.

[Flying Dream Blues]

30. You're so right and I'm tired of them getting away with being called

"Conservative" while saying Democrats try to "legislate from the bench." This so-called Court makes my blood boil.

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. "...comes to light"

ahhhhh, there's the rub

[Odin2005]

22. I was gonna say the same thing.

[glitch]

25. Conservative used to be fairly respectable until the Fascists start cloaking themselves in it. nt

[defendandprotect]

34. Excellent point -- 1000% --

And they have a 5 vote lock on that fascism --

at the least!

We also have Biden to thank for Clarence Thomas even being on the court --

he's a pervert who should have been dumped.

Roberts, as well -- he ran Bush's 2000 lie -- including the GOP-sponsored fascist rally

to stop the vote counting in Miami Dade Election Headquarters!

[Botany]

14. The odds are in our favor

Scalia 74
Kennedy 74
Thomas 63
Roberts 55 and has had some health issues
Alito 60

Justice Ginsburg will soon be stepping down too.

[onehandle]

18. President Obama will not make a dent in the court's makeup.

Ginsburg is the last Justice he will replace. Bush extended Conservative rule for a long, long time.

[David__77]

24. Ginsberg should retire before 2012.

She should put the interests of the people of the country first. Sounds harsh but we cannot take too big of chances.

[DumpDavisHogg]

16. Actually, Obama can do something about it

It's called court-packing. But he'll need Congress's cooperation.

[onehandle]

17. Only one more court member will step down in the next six years.

And she's a Liberal.

President Obama will not make a dent in the court. Bush extended Conservative rule for a long, long time.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Scalia and Kennedy

will both be 80 years old in 6 years. A tiny few justices have ever made it or remained seated that long or longer.

[librechik]

31. He can change it by appointing another con/moderate instead of a true liberal

And if history is any indication, he will.

[suzie]

36. Who is the con/moderate that Obama appointed to the Court?

Or is that just a new anti-Obama talking point?

"Appoints conservatives to SCOTUS."

[librechik]

37. Sotomayor more conservative than the justice she replaced

In fact, it's a trend over many decades for the replacements to be more conservative than those they replaced, until now we have the most conservative court in history. And I'm disappointed in Obama's actions, not anti-Obama. Clearly, judges with a more liberal viewpoint are needed to balance the conservative trend of the court, yet, the nominees are both moderates, and edge toward center to right, IMO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html

I guess Obama is just a victim of history--not a groundbreaker for change...bless his heart.

[suzie]

38. You quoted from Justice Stevens, well almost.

Instead of a direct quote, you conveniently misquoted what the good justice said to fit your anti-Obama narrative. And sorry, but changing the justice's words and the NY Times article to fit your "Obama appoints conservatives" meme is simply unbelievable.

What the article quoted Justice Stevens as saying was, "In an interview in his chambers in April, he said that every one of the 11 justices who had joined the court since 1975, including himself, was more conservative than his or her predecessor, with the possible exceptions of Justices Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

A good many court observers have pointed out that the kind of extreme leftist ideologue that you're looking for would likely pull the SCOTUS further right. Given that Kennedy is currently the swing justice, these observers have noted that a far left justice might cause Kennedy to vote very seldom with the liberal bloc. Watching Kagan's conciliatory and easy manner and given that Dean of Harvard Law School must mean dealing with some very high-powered egos, she may be an appropriate replacement for Souter and Stevens in working on moving Kennedy into their side on individual cases.

In contrast to your "Obama appoints more conservatives" meme, Sotomayor has served as both a trial and appellate judge. Many of the more ideological judges preferred by "the left" have served only at the appellate level. She has also been a judge for a very long time and came out of the very adversarial 2nd Circuit. As such, she is probably a good balance to Scalia, who--like many of the justices so beloved by the "left"--also never served on a trial court, and only 4 years on an appellate one.

Plus, Sotomayor is the closest thing on the Court to an O'Connor, who'd actually served as a trial judge in state court. Sotomayor has actually dealt with individual cops as an ADA--something that no one else on the Court has the experience of doing.

Perhaps that's why she wrote the dissent on the recent Miranda case? Would you consider that "edging toward center to right"? But perhaps you feel that a Diane Wood, who has never sat on a Federal trial level bench or dealt with the criminal justice system at the bottom level would have had a better understanding of the issues in a Miranda question and been able to write a better dissent?

Obama has a Attorney General who has actually been a judge--and might have some inkling about how judges actually react with each other than "liberal" bloggers or TV celeb law school professors.
But then, that would be giving the Obama administration some credit and we can't have that.

[librechik]

41. thanks for the nuanced response & info.

I was speaking to my sense of the entire article. In fact I had quite forgotten the Stevens quote when I wrote the OP.

[S_B_Jackson]

19. And not even FDR got beyond the threat-stage with that plan

and it pissed off the electorate as well. A move in that direction would cause a backlash that might give the GOP a 60%+ majority in both houses of Congress and enable - with the complicity of blue-dogs the removal of nearly all progress that this administration and this Congress have made. And for 10 years to come as well.

[John Kerry VonErich]

35. Good call there

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of '37

That could bring another "switch in time that saved 9". Very surprised I haven't heard more about it here.

[David__77]

23. Imagine if McCain had won...

It would be far, far worse. Let us hope that there are some vacancies on the right. If Kennedy values the continuation of the US as a constitutional republic, he should consider wisely who will decide upon his replacement.

[reformist2]

27. The 'Corporations are People Too' decision is the crowning achievement of this court.

One day, this decision will receive the mockery it deserves from law professors and students alike. I hope.

[Hubert Flottz]

28. If you lied over and over when you interviewed for a job you'd be

fired when your employer found out.

Congress(our board of directors)needs to take appropriate action.

[boppers]

29. The Supreme Court is not limited to nine members.

Every so often, a president comes along and reminds people of that.

Of course, if Obama appointed 6 new members (for a total of 15), there's nothing to stop Palin (or whoever) from adding 10 more... this is one of those things where tradition *is* the unwritten law.

[closeupready]

32. We could expand the number of justices to 11.

n/t

[The Stranger]

40. Oh how sad -- a decent post descends into another bullshit "blame Nader" canard.

You can blame the Democrats in the fucking Congress who held Roberts and Alito's hands through the whole process.

You can blame the Pelosi disaster for not impeaching the war criminals.

You can blame the two Democrats on the judicial committee who switched sides to vote against the Democrats and confirm Roberts and Alito.

But Nader?

What a fucking joke. You've just lost any fucking hope or sense of credibility whatsoever.

Thanks, nevertheless.