Ranking the Politics of Supreme Court Justices

These empirical studies are garbage. "If a justice votes in favor of a defendant on a criminal procedure case, that vote is considered 'liberal.' If the justice votes against the plaintiff in a civil rights case, the vote is considered 'conservative.'"

Take just one counter-example: local bar-owner John Doe files suit against his municipal government, challenging a new ordinance that bans smoking in establishments with liquor licenses. He is the a "civil rights plaintiff." The "conservative" vote, according to this methodology, would uphold the ban, and thereby bolster the government's power to interfere with John Doe's business in the name of saving his customers from themselves. I suppose those in the "least conservative" list would vote to strike down the ordinance.

Posner, of all people, should know better than to lend legitimacy to such superficial classifications by relying on them in academic discourse. I know he qualified his reliance on the data, but he shouldn't have even dignified that "methodology" with so much as a cursory acknowledgement.

Mike of MD 5:27PM June 02, 2011

Camielle

They are nominated for life terms, by the President to be confirmed by the Senate, whenever a vacancy occurs through the death, resignation or removal by impeachment of an existing Justice. So they have each been there for different times and each will remain there until they die, resign or are removed by impeachment (which has never happened).

Answer of CA 2:12PM February 05, 2009

People who (a) don't KNOW the names of the SCOTUS justices already, AND aren't competent enough with Google (or even Wiki) to find out on their own, only embarrass THEMSELVES by whining over a triviality, and bitching out the OP, at that!

Keith A 9:58AM November 05, 2008

The Federal Court judges do not seem to care about the 'Law' or the Supreme Courts decisions clarifying those laws ( 29cfr-1625 23 , Fed rules of court procedure 8 a 2, EEOC Fed reg 77438-47 )

They just roll over laws cited without explanation and Summarily Dismiss. My Court case is Public knowledge and should be, please print.

I filed a lawsuit against the Company that laid me off, 1 month after I requested an ‘’Alternative Dispute Resolution’’ review for, Age Discrimination.

The Judge in the Federal Court of New Hampshire and the appeals judge in the first circuit in Boston Ma., Went against the rule of law in Summery Dismissal of my case I will now go to the Supreme Court, however the Supreme Court only hears’ only one percent of submitted cases and the Federal Courts across the Country by on line record go against the rules of law as well as recorded Supreme Court decisions clarifying said law, over one percent of the time. This needs to be brought to the attention of the Citizens of the U.S. Are lawful guides ‘Judges’, are our enemies.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Docket No. 1:07-CV-00351-sm

US COURT OF APPEALS ,BOSTON MA. DOCKET NO. 08-1595

Question;

HAS the Judge acted improperly and abused his discretionary power, particularly regarding 8(a) and 8(e), and with a lack of appropriate judicial clarity in improperly granting defendants' motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), so as to prejudice Petitioners in their rights, or in their pursuit of justice? The Court, through its deliberate failure to consider appropriate and correct law and fact which were called to the Court's attention, improperly dismissed the action of Petitioner? In its dismissal, with prejudice, of the action brought by Petitioners, has the Court violated their rights, in fact: under the First Amendment to petition the courts for redress of grievances; b) under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to equal protection of the laws. c) Under the Seventh, Amendment to a trial by jury. COMMENTARY

It is not enough for the Judge to state in Summary Disposition that, ‘’despite budros protestations, evidence is required to stave off summary disposition’’.

It is the Judges obligation to the Pro Se Citizen, especially in the light of the Pro Se stating in Discovery that evidence was sent to the Defendant; (transcripts of Emails sent to budro by BAE people regarding work status and pending layoff, all of which displays persecution by ‘Human Resource’ people as well as age discrimination as well as retaliation.)

, but not to the Court due to the ‘Pro Se Guide books’ statement the ‘’no evidence shall be sent to the Judge except in actual trial’’. (See documents included)

The Judge should have helped guide the Pro Se by informing the Pro Se that the Judge would hold ruling for a time period and that the Pro Se must copy the Judge that Email and other evidence.

It is not enough for the Judge to say that budro had signed a facially valid ADEA release waiver and not mention the EEOC Federal Regulation cited by budro that states, ‘’the waiver cannot be deemed valid on its face but rather with evidence presented to the jury in trial’’.

The Judge’s Summary Disposition was effective and expedient but how can a Citizen view it as justice?

The Pro Se is a non lawyer begging aid and redress from the Judge, a Master of the law, Rules and Regulations. If the Master in not there to guide and judge justice and law but only there to buttress an impenetrable wall that the puny Pro Se Citizen can only push against and peer up. What is our justice system?

Of course the Pro Se may be completely wrong in its interpretation of its lawful rights regardless of how simple the rule wording seems. Is that not the Judge’s job? To state why each point of law by word is valid or non valid?

Plaintiff and defendant could input into the court computer the sworn to pleas and answers with jurisdiction and transcripts of Email evidence. And the computer compare that to all to the words of law. And the computer than, spit out ‘won & lost’, the ultimate in fairness and justice, Correct? Not in my opinion, what errors would have been inadvertently programmed into the computer we can but wonder at. The human masters (Judges) are our best tools we Citizens call on those tools.

These cases should not require a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ to our US Supreme Court when the Constitutional law has already been clearly defined with Federal Regulations and Federal Rules of Court procedure.

This is the most widely socially important reason

The U.S. Supreme Court should here this prayer for redress. If the Inferior Courts across the Country are going against the word of law (Constitutional and Common) over 1% of the time by courts record on line in one year. And the U.S. Superior Court by its own instruction booklet reviews only 1% of ‘Writs for Certiorari’ in one year.

What does that mean for U.S. Citizens?

Justice by quota?

carol budro of NH 11:42AM September 23, 2008