Liberal Forum

Johnny » wrote:

03 Feb 1970, 5:25 pm

Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Balless, go ahead the facts that prove the article.  Or go start a thread where you can mock the writer.

6 in 10 cases must have been no brainers..

it's  the only way there was unaminity..

 

Generally, that is the way the court always is regardless of the makeup.  
 

The Supreme Court has castrated itself just like MAGAc Mike Johnson cucked Congress..

Trump will ignore them all in the coming electoral loss..  It could be an incredibly ugly time.

Not that it isn't already..
 

Johnny » wrote:

03 Feb 1970, 5:25 pm

The Supreme Court has castrated itself just like MAGAc Mike Johnson cucked Congress..

Trump will ignore them all in the coming electoral loss..  It could be an incredibly ugly time.

Not that it isn't already..
 

 

Ugly time?  Historically the ruling party loses seats during the mid terms.  

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

Tell you what Balless Wonder, go back to the Supreme Court thread I started and post proof 

It's not that you will actually commit to defending this drivel, it is that you will sit idly by while I pose the necessary questions...which you will then demand I answer.

SC, DD

Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

Huey » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

Tell you what Balless Wonder, go back to the Supreme Court thread I started and post proof 

It's not that you will actually commit to defending this drivel, it is that you will sit idly by while I pose the necessary questions...which you will then demand I answer.

SC, DD

 

I take ot you have nothing to prove the article wrong.  Got it.  Looks I have nothing to say on your thread.

What historical evidence of unanimous decisions are in the SC?

Seems to me they always flock things up together.
 

Johnny » wrote:

03 Feb 1970, 5:25 pm

What historical evidence of unanimous decisions are in the SC?

Seems to me they always flock things up together.
 

 

General Statistics on Unanimity

• Strict Unanimity (9–0): Fully unanimous decisions average around 36% of cases annually since 2000, though this number fluctuates year-to-year (ranging anywhere from under 30% to nearly 50% or more depending on the term). [1, 2]

• Near-Unanimity (7–2 or 8–1): Lopsided majorities that are nearly unanimous account for an additional roughly 15% of cases. [1]

• Compared to Split Decisions: Unanimous 9–0 rulings are historically much more common than narrow 5–4 split decisions, which generally represent less than 20% of the Court’s output

Huey » Today, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:37 am

I take ot you have nothing to prove the article wrong.  Got it.  Looks I have nothing to say on your thread.

you fail to understand that the question is not about signed decisions - where it is a matter of WHICH decisions...

It's about the use of the shadow docket.

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:37 am

I take ot you have nothing to prove the article wrong.  Got it.  Looks I have nothing to say on your thread.

you fail to understand that the question is not about signed decisions - where it is a matter of WHICH decisions...

It's about the use of the shadow docket.

 

Ah, yes, a statistical masterpiece—completely free of actual numbers.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:04 pm

NYPost

Jonathan Turley

an highly revered accomplished constitutionalist?



**** coward…
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:03 pm

To a "t"

you’re a **** idiot…  
 

ROG62 » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:04 pm

NYPost

Jonathan Turley

an highly revered accomplished constitutionalist?



**** coward…
 

 

Right, because BV's clearly the modern Clarence Darrow and knows better than Turley.

Huey » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

Right, because BV's clearly the modern Clarence Darrow and knows better than Turley.

Well YEAH!!! That a given!   

Huey » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

Right, because BV's clearly the modern Clarence Darrow and knows better than Turley.

I see no value in @ROG62  's endorsement...

We could examine his record over the past 15 years in matters of public record

and knows better than Turley.

You two idiots think you know better than a federal judge..

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

I see no value in @ROG62  's endorsement...

We could examine his record over the past 15 years in matters of public record

You two idiots think you know better than a federal judge..

No, but I do notice a distinct lack of statistics backing up your assertions