RE: Fake News: Justice Kavanaugh Would Hardly Change The Supreme Court At all
The chart shown here depicts relative ideologies. It does not show the overall Court ideology.
The Supreme Court in total has become more conservative over time. It has gone so far that it is now reactionary. Reactionaries are conservatives who want to turn back the clock and revert to the past.
Examples:
A 5-4 decision just overturned 40 year old precedent to block unions from collecting fees from all their members. This is ironic because unions are created and leadership is elected on a one-person-one-vote basis.
On the other hand, a recent 5-4 decision guaranteed the rights of all corporations to spend unlimited and undisclosed money for elections, despite the fact that corporations are not democratic. This is the case of Citizens United.
A few years later, a 5-4 decision protected Hobby Lobby by allowing the company to deny general health benefit rights to women. Here's how it works. Women may be denied health services that may be connected to contraception or abortion, whether they use those services for that reason or for other health reasons. Women must then pick up a separate policy for women's health.
Another 5-4 decision, going back to 1990, completely eliminated any requirement for Fourth Amendment cause by upholding random sobriety checks. The legendary Antonin Scalia wrote this decision.
Some 15 years later, another 5-4 decision reversed prior precedent to allow the police to break and enter into people's homes in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, Antonin Scalia (again) literally admitted the police violated the Constitution, but then he said that the Court could not enforce it.
In 2010, on the heels of the infamous Citizens United decision, a 6-3 partisan Court, six Republicans for, three Democrats against, said that people could go to prison for long periods if they dared to advise so-called terrorist groups to give up terror. Jimmy Carter was livid about this blatant free speech violation.
In an early decision by the John Roberts Jr Court, a 5-4 decision came out defying Brown v. Board by making busing illegal without a court order.
In 2011, a 5-4 Supreme Court overturned traditional state contract law and permitted AT&T to commit "unconscionable" fraud -- overcharging thousands of customers -- and disallowing the customers from suing in court or joining together in other civil action. Every man to himself against the conglomerate.
Just this year, a 5-4 Supreme Court extended the AT&T case to employers. Now, people can't join together to sue or act jointly against employer wrongdoing. This is particularly egregious because the 1935 National Labor Relations Act specifically guarantees joint action and mutual aid.
A few years ago, a 5-4 Supreme Court insisted that arrestees who would like to exercise their right to remain silent must speak to remain silent. Bizarre stuff.
The Supreme Court just punted all of the 'extreme partisan gerrymandering' cases back. This means that states like Wisconsin -- where 52 percent of the people vote for Democrats but the legislature winds up 66 percent Republican -- remain for the 2018 election.
Each movement to the right matters. For example, in 2000, a 5-4 Supreme Court overturned a state law banning abortion because it did not have enough protection for the life and health of the mother. At that time, the swing voter was Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy was in the solid block of four "conservatives." After O'Connor left, Kennedy became the swing voter. In the next abortion case, in 2007, the Court essentially reversed its position, allowing a similar law to stand. It is notable that the the 2007 decision was based upon a federal abortion ban, so there is no "blue state" exception.
PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW MORE about the Supreme Court. They are doing all kinds of things that we rarely hear about.
What does any of this have to do with Kavanaugh? In what ways is he expected to be more conservative than Kennedy? If he isn't expected to be, then the conservative shift already happened long before this appointment. If he is expected to be, then why didn't the NYT put it in their report?
This post is about how the New York Times is full of it. I don't have high standards for politicians. I have very high standards for "respected" newspapers. The NYT routinely fails to meet minimal standards for honest reporting.
Underlying your post is the substantive issue that Brett Kavanaugh will make no difference or that such differences do not matter. I contested that view two ways:
The Court is already too conservative, as suggested by most of the cases I cited, and
It makes a difference, as described with a specific example in the paragraph beginning, "Each movement to the right matters."
Brett Kavanaugh is expected to be more reactionary than Anthony Kennedy on abortion rights.
Brett Kavanaugh is also expected to be more willing to allow politicians to choose their voters in 'extreme partisan gerrymandering' cases than Anthony Kennedy.
Brett Kavanaugh is expected to be less willing to uphold the ancient right of habeas corpus than Anthony Kennedy, and would swing the Court against it. In 2008, in a 5-4 decision upholding habeas corpus, Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote to keep it alive.
Brett Kavanaugh is expected to support the new Constitutional philosophy that corporations have religious rights, and may used those rights to block employees or consumers from legal protection or benefits, as was done in the Hobby Lobby case.
Brett Kavanaugh is expected to oppose the recent gay marriage rights case where Anthony Kennedy was the deciding 5-4 vote; and since this precedent is recent, he could overturn it.
Like John Roberts Jr., Brett Kavanaugh believes in a 'unitary executive' with broad powers. Brett Kavanaugh has actually written that he thinks the president is essentially above the law -- a position that he came to support after being part of the investigation of Bill Clinton.
There are a few differences.
I never said small shifts don't matter. I said we shouldn't call a small shift a big shift.
You don't exaggerate and report an extra big earthquake to scare people into reacting "appropriately" when there's a big earthquake. You report the earthquake accurately and you educate people so that they understand the implications without any need for misinformation.
Will Kavanaugh probably be more conservative than Kennedy was? Yeah, that's the general consensus. But, not that much. In these kinds of cases, the middle is always somebody who is making a compromise between the two sides on a complex issue. If Kavanaugh is a little more conservative than Kennedy was, he'll push his compromises a little further rightward, but they will still be compromises.
Small changes to the right matter. Accurate, honest reporting matters. Is that really so much to ask from the premier newspapers in America? The truth should be enough. No need for embellishments or exaggerations.