(regarding a partisan court and Adam Liptak's articles in the New York Times)
... I think the best way to look at this is to realize that it is a generation of scholars from the 1960s, and the post-modern culture that emerged, which projects onto the Court its picture of partisanship. It's an article of faith among law and courts scholars not unlike those carried by Christians (or whomever) for their beliefs. It's simply the narrative that the audience likes. My concern is that, not only are the mathematical models terribly misleading, but the theoretical framework is specious as well. It's unfortunate that Liptak has become a company man for this view. I mean, how can you NOT have an ideological court when the centrists are said to have center-ideology? There is no serious thinking among anyone cited in Liptak's article as to what an ideological court, philosophically, really is. All that is really said here is that a generation's attitudes for post-modern culture came to power in academic and intellectual circles. And they painted the color of the room the one they desired.
One day, this orientation won't be here anymore, and new scholars will be re-writing the history for the era.
----- Original Message -----
Adam Liptak's article prompted me to focus on the partisan split in the Supreme Court. Whatever the statistical evidence might show, I perceive that many in the general public perceive the Court as partisan.
... it would be extremely helpful to know what this means. If any man has a view, it rests upon something. If those things are not factual, we call the view is misinformed -- not that it is his "personal politics." If a person has a vision that you do not share, then the issue is which vision is better (or what can be said of the qualities of the vision). If a justice today have inferior visions about something, then this is the issue, not that he or she is "cheating." So much of what the partisan critique comes down to is this. Liberal college professors don't like the campaign contribution and affirmative action decisions. Maybe they don't like the prayer cases. And so, rather than simply admit THIS, they just tell everyone that the Court is partisan, the implication being that decisions going the opposite way would be the Court doing the pious thing. The question is simple: who is more partisan: the professors or the Court?
Let's do it this way: in a culture that whines, how in God's name do you think the justices will be characterized?________________________________
Subject: Re: Trivia question re: partisan splits on the Court
What isn't legitimate is what seems recently to be worse than it has ever been, viz., members of the Court simply giving effect to their personal political preferences.