There are currently 7 conservatives and 2 liberals on the Supreme Court. Does this help us predicting the outc

Question

There are currently 7 conservatives and 2 liberals on the Supreme Court. Does this help us predicting the outcome of a decision? Do you feel the U.S Supreme Court judges decision are made to protect the rights of the American people or are the judgments promoting their own political views?

Answer 1

The Court has taken a number of steps in the past few years that clearly indicate it is conservative in outlook. However, the justices are bound by their own consciouses and their understanding of the law, so it is somewhat difficult to predict what may or may not happen in a particular case.

Generally speaking, the Court has taken a decidedly pro-business stance in recent years. There is no doubt that this reflects the business background and appellate court background of the majority of the justices. They make few bones about trying to protect the rights of the American people. In decision after decision, the Court has come down against the American people and in favor of big business.

Answer 2

There are not 7 conservatives on the court.  There are only 4, with 4 liberals and one swing vote.

Conservatives - Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia

Liberals - Stevens, Souter, Ginberg, Breyer

Swing - Kennedy

Just because 7 were appointed by Republicans and 2 by Democrats does not mean that those justices follow those philosophies.

Answer 3

I almost totally agree with the above answers. I'd say that there are 4 staunchly conservative Justices and 1 who is mildly conservative, and then 4 who are liberals. No, knowing how many conservatives there are is not necessarily a good tool in predicting the outcome of all decisions. Maybe some, but not all.

I do believe that the Justices often use their decisions to promote their own political views, ............. d**n them.

Answer 4

I feel they are just protecting big business from its crimes and ruling  against the little guy in case after case.  The republicans like to make their base think that the judges will somehow bring the Christian rights views about and protect against g*y marriage, restore it as it was before roe v wade and such but in actually, these republican judges side against the people not only in lawsuits where the little guy is injured by the negligence of some big corporation or to help the corporations in some way but also to maintain the Republican party power.

Here in Ohio in 2004 four attorneys filed a lawsuit Moss v Bush against Bush and Cheney for the disenfranchisement of a group of disenfranchised Ohio voters. Bush and Cheney were subpoenaed I believe.  

They had did not even answer depositions or respond which if the average person did that they would be charged with contempt of court.

The republican judges including the head judge who was also  himself being sued for voter fraud in the same lawsuit (Moss v Bush) refused to recuse himself despite his obvious conflict of interest.

All the attorneys were told their lawsuit was "frivolous and were to be sanctioned.  Many people sent letters begging this not be done including congressman John Conyers who had investigated this massive vote fraud and did a 100 page congressional report called "what went wrong in Ohio"

Finally, they threw the case out and did not sanction the lawyers., but they never heard all the evidence or allowed the disenfranchised mostly black voters their day in court.

Had they been democratic judges and ruled there was fraud in the presidential election, it would have been sent to a higher court eventually reaching the supreme court where the republican leaning judges would throw out the ruling of the lower court.  

This is the danger in having it so out of balance...they can get away with anything they do that is wrong by stacking the courts to protect them and this is just horrific.

Bush was very careful to be friends with his appointees in the hopes they would help him if he ever got charged with treason or other high crimes for what he has done in office.

Watching the Ohio vote fraud case closely, I saw how partisan the judges were and the great lack of objectivity and reluctance to avoid angering TPTB and the supreme unfairness of it all.

Answer 5

I agree with the above answers. I knew that Ginberg and Souter were liberals. I didn't think that there were that many Conservatives on the Supreme Court.

Answer 6

The first part of your question is answered by many of the above. As to the last part of your question---the SCOTUS decisions or lack thereof is and has changed this nation's original intent. They decide which cases they want to hear and parse the wording of the Constitution until  it fits their thinking at the time and then uses a thing called precedent to continue this making law from the bench---most of the members do not believe in---strict construction---they believe that the constitution is a living instrument and needs altering as time passes.

Answer 7

You need to recount who you think is Conservative.  At best right now there are 4 Conservative Judges.  The rest are Liberal or moderate/liberal.

That's why Republicans need to win again so we can put two more judges there who will not write the laws but just do their constitutional duties.