No. I think the best judges can detach themselves from their personal beliefs and see things from all perspectives, with making judgements based on the laws and constitutions. No one is perfect, which is why there are 9 judges in the court, but when the court is stacked with conservatives or liberals, this is the result. I wish that every judge appointed was someone who went through a true bipartisan process that limited the number of ideologues on a court.
I disagree that there are ideologues on the court. Alito at times may feel that way and Sotomayor most of the time perhaps, but that's about it
despite it being from Hot Air, this is a really good assessment of why Kavanaugh was likely the key vote here and why he will be the key swing vote in the future https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022...veling-to-blue-states-for-an-abortion-n478584
Alito, Thomas, and Barrett are definitely ideologues. To me far more than Sotomayor. Those three are ideological and radically so.
I don't see how you can even flirt with that as regards Barrett, she hasn't had enough time on the Court to establish anything like a pattern of rulings. Thomas, okay, I'd grant you that one for the sake of argument. But you're blind about Sotomayor if that's what you really think
Ilya Somin apparently made much the same argument earlier in the day today: Kavanaugh Indicates States Can't Bar Residents From Getting Abortions in Other States This makes it likely, though not certain, that the Supreme Court will strike down such laws if states enact them. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/2...dents-from-getting-abortions-in-other-states/
and Eugene Volokh weighs in as well: Justice Kavanaugh on the Right to Travel to Get an Abortion https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/justice-kavanaugh-on-the-right-to-travel-to-get-an-abortion/
Her whole reason for being on the court was because she was an ideologue. She was a bone to the far right who loved her appointment. As far of Sotomayor - which ruling do you feel makes her an ideologue in particular?
^ see, this is the trick that the Kavanaughs of the universe like to play, and that MAGA internet JDs (as if getting a real one is laudable, but thats another matter) like @Os Trigonum and @basso like to boringly ape by copy pasting dorks like Adrian Vermeule (the most geebly authoritarian i have ever had the displeasure of having had to listen to) or whoever- they're just calling balls and strikes, engaged in hardcore legal scholarship - any alignment with their fox news brained politics and authoritarian wetdreams is purely coincidental. Except we all live in the real world with **** like Uvalde. Nobody's going to believe their **** no matter how hard they post. SCt won the undying approval of GOPutinists - and lost it for everyone else https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/dobbs-decision-supreme-court-legitimacy.html There will not be a glorious peace that settles over the land now that this issue has been sent back to the states, no matter how much Justice Brett Kavanaugh wants you to believe it. There will be infighting among states, and vicious criminal prosecutions, and joyous theological efforts to secure future harms for gay partners and families struggling with IVF and women seeking contraception. The people who suffer the most will be the poorest, the youngest, the sickest—the people whose interests don’t even warrant acknowledgment by the majority opinion.
she is by far the most reliably "liberal" justice, perhaps less so on criminal cases but on the whole, she drinks the kool aid her most recent Martin Quinn score for example https://ballotpedia.org/Sonia_Sotomayor
I've only skimmed this thread but I agree there is reason to be concerned over the fate of cases like Obergfell, Lawrence and Loving. Alito and Kavanaugh can write what they want and claim that this ruling has no basis on any other issue but the reasoning they have laid out does call into question a right to privacy. As Thomas said in his concurrence. The argument that Alito lays out regarding that abortion is the only issue is because it concerns the life of another while those others don't ignores that in all of those cases there is more than one party concerned. Most people don't use contraception when they masturbate and marriage by definition involves multiple parties. Further narrowing down the argument even more to just the potential life of an unborn there are many contraceptives that don't prevent fertilization but attachment of an embryo to the uterine wall. Under the argument that life begins at conception then that is ending a life . Depending on the religious views many faiths regard conception as a divine act not to be interferred with therefore birth control that prevents a woman from ovulating or a sperm from reaching an egg could be viewed as interferring with life. Under the same reasoning in Dobbs that could be applied that a life is being affected by allowing contraception.
Alright, I'll give you that - let's put her in the ideologue bucket. I haven't paid much attention to her rulings given that the court has had the conservative judges in the majority for so long that typically they nearly always shape the rulings. Barrett hasn't been on long but given her shared philosophy and rulings on the circuit, she seems to be pretty far to the right, although its true that historically justices have tended to evolve their perspective once they get to the high court.
