SCOTUS Bias Question

I have a question. Many, many times I have been told that while everyone has biases, it is certainly possible to set them aside and be impartial. Especially ephors

Recently we had 3 decisions:

Biden v. Nebraska-student loan transfer

303 Creative v. Elenis-free speech

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina- Affirmative Action. Treating people differently because of the color of their skin.

All three of these decisions were 6-3 right down party lines.

How is this possible if they are ruling on a legal basis and many of them studied in the same schools?

The point is not whether you agree with the outcomes or not.

The point is we are being had. We are being ruled by unelected members of the DNC and GOP in robes. “Democracy” my hind foot.

It isn’t a nation of laws, it’s an oligarchy of ivy league lawyers.

How can 6 bias set aside people vote one way and three the opposite way with the same training and reading the same law?

Even Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was really 6-3, although they give Roberts credit for waffling.


While the “ephorism” is strong the last three descends by the liberal judges have missed the mark. It’s almost as if they are written because they are expected to be written.

Excellent observation. I’ve never looked at it that way. Definitely something to think about.

1 Like

Hmm, but what would remedy this? The court gets thousands of petitions every term, maybe triple the number of judges and have them rotate to different cases. Or, of course, term limits. SCOTUS elections? Lord no! How about an amendment to amend the current amendments and clarify them for today’s society? Who the hell knows.

of course a lot has to do with basic philosophy. A texualist, an originalist, a liberal, and a leftist can all go to the same school, have the same training, and come up through the same court system, but their view of the constitution will not be the same.

Posters here mostly state the opinions and relevant facts as they see them. Yet, you can usually (not always) predict the facts that are seen as important and how they interpret them based on the history of the poster.
Judges come from the same pool of humans.

1 Like

Then they are not setting their biases aside as was claimed.

1 Like


What interpretation should be used for the Bill of Rights?

well of course there is personal bias from SCOTUS justices.

its the nature of the beast.

when its not 6-3 con lib split on an important issue it is news and an actual unbiased opinion is being issued.

otherwise the bias shows.


Have the three liberal judges ever voted different from one another?

1 Like

of course. happens all the time.


May 11th, 2023.

upholding the California pork law.



May 18th, 2023

Andy warhol case

Kagan in the minority.


They read the constitution differently.

No, they don’t. If there were minor variations then perhaps. These are not minor variations.

The fundamentals and principles either aren’t the same or they are being ignored.

1 Like

setting bias aside isn’t going to turn a liberal into a textualist or an originalist.

I’m a liberal and I’m both.

One thing I like about all these decisions is the decoupling from stare decisis. It’s necessary for order to some degree, not law.

stare decisis is nothing but the courts excuse to ignore the constitution. they have put the executive branch version of it in action with the APA, another abomination