Is it really a 6 to 3 majority on the Supreme Court?

This is not my forte, as there are others here who are more tuned in to the SCOTUS. It’s my understanding that many Conservatives view Roberts as a liberal and don’t view Kavanaugh or Gorsuch as “true” Conservatives. I recall either reading from some here and/or people on the radio being critical of the new justices. Is it more like 5-4, or maybe 3-3-3? So what are your thoughts?

No, it is a 6-3 conservative court. If you don’t like their conservatism, it doesn’t make them suddenly liberal.

John Roberts is a smart man to limit the amount of damage activist judges can do to the court’s reputation, but he may have run out of rope with the latest confirmation. That awaits to be seen though.

Seriously? The man that rewrote Obamacare is not activist judge?


Clarification is not a rewrite. The tax was repealed. This is a moot point.

1 Like

The definition of an activist judge is one that I don’t agree with.

1 Like

I think that one of the key points is how the decision to hear cases is made. It takes four of the Justices to agree that a case should be heard. Our new Justice may have a influence on bringing cases which may have a big impact on some laws.


Are you afraid and why and what of?

It’s 6-3

3 justice appointed by democratic presidents

6 by republicans.

It’s simple math.


In the end it’s how they vote, much more so than who appointments them.


I disagree, democratic presidents have been shortchanged.


Republicans have appointed some major catastrophes (from their point of view).

President Eisenhower famously spoke of Chief Justice Warren as the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made and Justice Brennan was not far behind.

And GHW Bush appointed Souter.

And Kennedy put Byron White on the Supreme Court.

Thus, why the Federalist Society is so involved in Judicial appointments now.


A quick search for Roe v Wade shows 5 GOP-appointed justices among those concurring: William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, Warren Berger, Lewis Powell, and Potter Stewart. Why do the liberals get in such a tizzy about Supreme Court nominations?

The way I look at it, it is what it is. Most decisions are 9-0 or 8-1 for the most part, so it doesn’t really matter. The country is changing and it is definitely moving towards the Demographics that favor Dems. Texas is nearly purple and when it leans blue, the GOP is going to face a tough road.

These justices aren’t going to be around forever, and when the time comes to replace them it will likely be a Democratic President doing it. In the meantime, we can just pass good bills that pass constitutional muster and ride out the current court.

i still think Gorsuch is a wildcard

I’m siding with the libs on Roberts. While the ACA was being debated in Congress, Republicans were calling the penalty a tax. In spite of the wording in the Bill, many Democrats at that time were publicly referring to it as a tax behind the scenes (off the House floor.) When the lawyers defending the Constitutionality of the ACA argued before the Court, they called it a tax. Roberts was correct to call it a tax when he ruled that Congress has the Constitutional authority to levy taxes. That doesn’t make him a liberal; that makes him logical. A tax penalty is a tax.

My prediction is that when the Constitutionality of the ACA comes before the Court again, this 6-3 conservative court will find the law to be Constitutional by a vote of 6-3. A law being atrocious and counter productive does not in itself constitute unconstitutional.


That too.

One case does not an activist judge make.

Because it makes for a good hot-button campaign issue to incite their flock.


That is not what constitutes an conservative Justice.

Absolutely wrong. If anyone has been shortchanged, it is conservative constituents. When a Republican appoints a judge, they expect (naively) that the judge will rule to their liking on all issues.