With the proviso that we don't yet actually know how they will vote, Steve Benan notes:
"When analysts expected a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling in support of the administration, they weren't just picking numbers out of thin air; this was a reasonable estimate based on everything we know about the court, the law, and these justices.
So why do the predictions look ridiculous? Because the legal community — analysts, scholars, journalists, attorneys, former clerks — appear to have wildly overestimated the extent to which conservative justices give a damn about precedent, the facts of the case, the court's traditions and respect for restraint, lower-court rulings, the integrity of the institution, and the justices' avoidance of activism.
Pretty much. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Predictions vs. expectations at the Supreme Court
The week after the health care drama at the Supreme Court, some on the right are so confident about the outcome, they see no reason to delay the taunting. They'll engage in some pre-decision chest-thu…
If we cared about impartiality we would solve the policy problems like math problems, but we put people in power because we want someone to ignore the evidence like we do, abuse the power like we would, so we can tolerate slavery by living through our owners vicariously.
I'm not quote as cynical about it as you, +Brandon Sergent — Roberts' nomination rhetoric aside, SCOTUS does not just face simple calls of ball or strike in most cases. Policy problems aren't just math problems because the number of factors to deal with makes it more like weather prediction (or control).
That said, yes, we tend to want people whose judgment we trust, but often that means people whose judgment outcomes are pleasing to us, regardless of the reasoning.
"Pretty much" Really? I would say not even close. The writer of the referenced article is quick to cynically ascribe nefarious motives to the justices. Our public discourse has devolved into nothing more than finger pointing and name calling where in fact legitimate differences of opinion about policy can and does exist. Honest people can have disagreements — just because the SCotUS might … might rule against the law in question does not come anywhere close to "proving" that any collection of justices (labeled "conservative" or "liberal" or whatever) that happen to be in the majority of a given ruling do not " give a damn about precedent, the facts of the case, the court's traditions and respect for restraint, lower-court rulings, the integrity of the institution, and the justices' avoidance of activism. "
The article is a disgusting push into a lack of respect for the intelligence and honesty of any person who disagrees with the author. Might as well have just written "if you don't agree with me, you're a cooty covered, stupid liar."
I disagree, insofar as the reading I did (across a fairly broad spectrum) of opinion about how the law would fare at SCOTUS, and read very little (aside from the most partisan) that indicate there would be much question about the law being overturned, and not the intensity of negative-seeming questions that we actually saw. And that was not (as noted in the article) just pundits, but a number of legal commenters of a variety of backgrounds.
While Benan's rhetoric is inflammatory, that delta in outcomes indicates something going on. It might be that the results behind the scenes will be as originally predicted, or it may be that there are some legal twist or constitutional implications that the observers haven't considered. We will have to see come June.
Well, I'm very glad you and I can disagree without being disagreeable. 😉 I understand the disconnect between prehearing analysis and posthearing analysis, but I think my previous position still applies — you're just moving where in the stream of events one declares "Cooty-covered lying stinker!"
Of course there was some question, or there wouldn't have been disagreements at the Circuit Court level that needed to be rectified by the SCotUS. To think otherwise is, well, naïve. And the justices may indeed have been looking at other constitutional issues that the commentators hadn’t been thinking about after looking at the sweep of rulings leading up to our current situation. Lets recall that the SCotUS are indeed the arbiters – that is precisely their function in our system of government. They may see some chain of precedents that have lead down an unintended path that taken logically has caused it to go off course from the constitutional framework. That does not mean, as the author stated, that they now have a disregard for precedent or have thrown out their distaste for “judicial activism.” I mean, if precedent could never be altered or adjusted, would you really want Dred Scott to still be legitimate precedent? The principles in this case are undoubtedly far more subtle than that example, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t viewed as just as important to the long term stability of our Federal/State dual levels of government by the justices.
And honestly, having listened to taped releases of oral arguments before, the lines of questioning in this case were NOT all that far out of the norm. It is being examined ever so much more closely because of the high profile nature of this case, so perhaps analysis of the tone of the questions is coming under a different type of scrutiny by those who are less familiar with the style often taken in these settings and some of that is adding to the current level of angst. As Cokie Roberts has mentioned more than once in her own analysis of oral arguments in other cases, the train of questioning in oral arguments are notoriously difficult to decipher for clues as to how a given justice will subsequently vote.
I therefore continue to maintain that the use of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides should be reassessed. Honest people can and do have legitimate disagreements over the philosophy of how to apply constitutional law. To jump to the conclusion that because someone doesn’t agree with one’s own philosophy means something nefarious afoot just simply has no value add to political discourse and is, well, the height of arrogance.
"To jump to the conclusion that because someone doesn’t agree with one’s own philosophy means something nefarious afoot just simply has no value add to political discourse and is, well, the height of arrogance."
And asserting that disagreement is in the majority devoid of covert agenda especially on the public and political stage with this much money and power involved in the context of a government and corporate sector composed of ambitious self-selectors is the height of naivete.
You sound like a drug company lobbyist to me.
To look at this utterly broken system and assert any level of functionality in the wake of the constant illegal wars, the citizen's united crap, the housing bubble, the execution of American citizens without due process, and on and on, is self blinded wishful thinking steeped madness.
Of course the scotus is corrupt. They are hand picked for the purposes of partisan cheerleading. They basically can't be fired and they have their job for life. They are the closest official American analog to royalty. The speak like people in such a position in such a context are going to be anything but corrupt speaks of mind numbing human ignorance.
Enjoy the last word, I'm done spending my days debating the read-only.
Muted.
Wow. Sorry that you have such exposed nerves. Maybe there's a drug treatment for that. 😉 (Note: not the suggestion of a lobbyist.)
" They are hand picked for the purposes of partisan cheerleading. They basically can't be fired and they have their job for life. "
Please point out where I stated the system was perfect or could not be improved.
Thanks for proving my point. Name calling is easy; evidence is hard. Listening to someone who disagrees with you with compassion and making an attempt to actually understand their point of view is even harder.