Ricky, you need to read what I actually wrote because everything you have here is irrelevant as far as what I've asserted.

Here's what you wrote Ray

I believe the majority of the US electorate sees it differently than this

Back it up.

Why don't you define "this" so the quote is helpful.

Ricky, as I've said (and you've failed to quote) I agree that the SC is politicized. However, I disagree that it is just as politicized as the other two branches of government. I think that Bush v. Gore was a very politicized decision. However, I think that Citizen's United and the upcoming ACA decision are based on philosophical differences. There's an on going debate on whether the constitution should be applied literally or based on today's notions, or somewhere in between. We've all talked about that before.

The ABC / Washington Post poll that you quote supports my position more than yours. In other words, in that poll, 50% say it is more based on partisan politics than the law; 40% say that it is more based on the law; 10% say it is both, neither, or they don't know. I'd say that 50% believing it is more based on partisan politics is very different than your assertion that most believe it is "just another politicized instrument strung between two competing ideologies".

I would say that the Business Week article that you quoted also supports my position. Here's the full quote of what was asked:

Bloomberg asked the question: “The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the constitutionality of the health-care reform law signed by President Obama in 2010. Do you expect the court will make this decision based solely on legal merits, or do you expect politics will influence how some justices vote?”

Seventy-five percent of the 1,002 respondents said they expect politics will influence the court’s ruling, 17 percent said the decision would be based solely on legal merits and 8 percent said they weren’t sure.

I agree with the 75%. Politics will influence the ruling. But that is a very different notion than only politics will influence the ruling which is what you've been writing.

There's a quote in the beginning of the article that highlights these philosophical differences very well.

“The ones that were appointed by Obama are more or less going to vote the way he would want them to,” said Republican poll participant Jacqueline Richey, an 86-year-old in Fort Myers, Florida. “Don’t get me wrong -- I don’t think they’re crooked. I just think they were appointed because they think like him.”

In other words, Democrats tend to think alike and conversely Republicans tend to think alike. But that's a different concept than simple partisanship.

The same article quotes one of the more liberal justices:

Justice Stephen Breyer told Bloomberg News in a 2010 interview that politics doesn’t influence the court, even in cases with electoral implications. “It would be bad if it were there,” he said. “And I don’t see it.”

I think he is overstating it, just like you are. There are some political differences and some legal philosophy differences at work here. It is very difficult to tease them apart.

ray

But that is a very different notion than only politics will influence the ruling which is what you've been writing

.

No I haven't. I've said it was politicized,,,, I haven't parsed what portion of their decision was poltiical, only that it is politicized...
And perhaps its because you don't understand the definition of politicized....

po·lit·i·cize
   [puh-lit-uh-sahyz] Show IPA verb, po·lit·i·cized, po·lit·i·ciz·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to bring a political character or flavor to;

If 3/4 of Americans think politics will influence the decision, that means they think its been politicized....
And so do you based on everything you''ve written.
Perhaps this is a realization that doesn't sit well when you see it in black and white?

Ricky, I can't fathom what you are talking about. The realization that the SC is politicized is very old for me (at least 11 years). I've seen it in black and white because I've written it in black and white for 3 pages now.

What you wrote is "which seems to have become just another politicized instrument strung between two competing ideologies". That is what my "this" that you quoted refers to. Our disagreement is over the meaning of the words "just another politicized instrument". I think the SC is more than that. If for you "just another politicized instrument" means "some undefined amount of politicized ", then we are in agreement.

Its my understanding, that as originally conceived, the Supreme Court was suppossed to be beyond political influence.
If the reality has never been thus, it is also true that its current incarnation is viewed as almost entirely predictable based upon the known political leanings of the justices...
That you'd like to think that it still floats above the political frey is a case of rose colored glasses.
The day Kagan and Marshall recuse themselves on the Health Care vote is the day i'll beleive that the Justices care about the concept of perceived impartiality and the importance it holds in the nature of the courts proceedings.

Ray, in other countries, the supreme courts often become the final word on controversial issues regarding constitutional rights. But in countries like Canada or the UK, I'll bet few know theri justices. Or even how the justices have been appointed or why...
(Without looking it up I know only the Chief Justice in Canada. A woman by the way. Beverly McLachlan.) And the constituional issues that have been ruled on are considered settled... Not issues for continuing revision. ( like Roe v Wade).


Perhaps its that I`m comparing what I know of other Supreme courts and you are comparing the SCOTUS with Congress....
My standard for non-politicized being a great deal higher....

Ricky, this entire conversation is the result of your not reading or writing carefully. You've totally ignored what I've actually written to argue against something that no one has written on these pages. You are both obtuse and dishonest. There's nothing more to say.

Also, do not mix up party partisanship with following a specific judicial ideology.

RickyP,
Which justice is Marshall?

Your understanding of the issue is proven with mis-statements as those...

Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, what's the difference?

I read what you wrote Ray. Carefully.
You are uncomfortable with the description of SCOTUS as politicized. And yet you agree with it.

arch

Also, do not mix up party partisanship with following a specific judicial ideology

.

Examples of what you mean?

Perhaps all minorities look the same to him?

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism. The current situation with respect to the health care legislation is judicial review. They are radical different actions, and the president, if he as "brilliant" as we've all been told, should know the difference. So in his recent criticisms of the court Mr. Obama is either behaving ignorantly or dishonestly. Which is it?

As I understand it, Roe v Wade was also a judicial review.

In both cases, a legal challenge was raised in a lower court against the standing law. And as a result, the USSC decided to take the case on to rule on the Constitutionality of said laws.

Is the real difference between the two which laws you agree with and which ones you don't?

rickyp wrote:

Also, do not mix up party partisanship with following a specific judicial ideology

.
Examples of what you mean?

The difference is a partisan decision is made to specifically favor a specific political party while the other is made based on an specific judical philosophy. For some examples.

An example of a partisan decision could be Bush v. Gore. There were two questions in this case. 1. Did the Florida recount violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause; and, 2. What is the remedy? The Court decided by a 7-2 majority the recount did violate equal protection. However, the remedy decision was 5-4. The 5 said the legislatively enacted deadline was the day the decision was released so the only remedy available was to stop the recount. The 4 said the case should be remanded to the Florida Supreme Court to have specific rules created and allow the recount to continue(though actually only 2 of the 7 wanted that. the other 2 felt "intent of the voter was good enough).

An argument could be made the majority 5 decided to halt the recount because it favored the Republican candidate. Alternatively, an argument could be made the 2 of the 7 (Breyer and Souter) voted against halting the recount because it favored the Democrat.

Examples of following a judicial philosphy could seen in some of Justice Kennedy's votes. He is something of a libertarian in that his judicial philosophy tends to focus on individual liberty. This means he voted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to uphold abortion rights as an aspect of the liberty of the mother but at the same time voted in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to bear arms is a personal right of individual liberty.

Thank you.
And I suppose we can smoke out the political partisans by identifying decisions where they took contradictory "philosophical positions" on similar cases?
Example: The one anticipated is how Scalia might vote on Health Care, versus how he has ruled on similar cases regarding the Commerce clause in the past...