They don't even try and hide their bias anymore. From a practical standpoint, it would seem that the Federalist society has successfully waged a coup that allows them to effectively set legislation through the USSC. Shocked that Clarence wasn't there too. Revealed: Four Supreme Court justices attended right-wing gala — risking the credibility of the court (msn.com) Four U.S. Supreme Court justices attended the black-tie dinner gala at the first Federal Society convention since the court overturned Roe vs. Wade in its controversial Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health decision. Associated Press correspondent Mark Sherman reported Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh were in attendance at the group's 40th-anniversary celebration Sherman noted it is four-fifths of the majority of the court that overturned Roe. Controversial Justice Clarence Thomas was the fifth. ...................... As with so many of our institutions, the judiciary can only do its work when the public has confidence in it," Vance noted. "Some of our judges seem to have forgotten that and that they have life tenure to serve the American people, not the political agenda of the people who put them in place."
Why am I not surprised? Three of them directly owe their nominations to the Federalist Society and the fourth (Alito) has been following the Society's agenda almost as soon as he was confirmed. Surprised that Clarence and Ginny Thomas weren't in attendance, too. Chief Justice Roberts being the possible exception it appears that the conservative justices aren't really concerned about the public's perception of the Court. Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low
Well that’s awful but not surprising. The courts are now fully partisan and they will be as such after they swing back to the left.
They don't pretend anymore. It is one thing I find interesting in terms of the narrative as to why a discontent public did not punish Democrats more as the party in charge. I'm not sure they see them as completely in charge. Republicans still have a supermajority of the super legislature which ducks into all forms of public policy, otherwise known as the Supreme Court. Plus they control so many state governments and the Supreme Court lets the state governments overrule the federal government in many instances. It's not clear that if you want change, you should vote against Democrats
The court has become so politicized that proposals to increase the number of justices once politically unthinkable could conceivably pass political muster today.
A judge should NEVER attend a partisan event. If a Florida judge did that, and it was reported to the FSC, it would admonish that judge. But lifetime tenure and not having to face an election or retention challenge will do that. Justices ought to face retention as they do in Florida. A SCOTUS Justice should be no more protected from voter opinion on the job they do for the public they serve than a Florida SCJ.
Most do the opposite, and they should: most judges are extremely competent and fair minded. No one can avoid their personal biases affecting their deliberations, of course, but most judges try more than the average person to take them into account. Most are aware of their solemn responsibilities and grow into their position.
This is a nonstory, frankly. FedSoc is technically nonpartisan. (We know they aren't, though.) As is ACS, which hosts liberal justices. (Again, they're not.) Not if they attended a FedSoc event. The majority of the current Florida Supreme Court are even bigger partisan hacks than the Supremes.
Yea, but voting against them is pointless since deSantis will just appoint more of the same or possibly worse.
While true, I still voted against all but Labarga. I didn't expect it would matter, and I wanted to register my disapproval. Might be time to consider a citizens' ballot initiative making our state supreme court justices and appellate judges run for nonpartisan elections, instead of just retention votes. If we're going to have politicians in the judiciary, we might as well get a say in who they are and have an opportunity to get rid of them when they misbehave. Plus, it would allow areas of the state to be represented by people who actually share their values.
If all that is true then the new person that gets appointed will not have biases either. Mostly I don't think these positions should be a lifetime position. The people that vote yes to retain them don't know if they are doing a good job or not.
Although the elections for Supreme Court justices in Florida are theoretically nonpartisan and the vote is "approve" or "disapprove" rather than an election against a named opponent, it shouldn't be that surprising that the Florida Supreme Court is even more partisan than the SCOTUS.
Gator_lawyer must have had enough bad experiences with judges to give this a bacon. After 40 years in the business, I can say that wasn’t my experience.
Me too. Can't see it now. Said that the Senate will take up a bill in lame dock with Republican support codifying same sex marriage with some religious freedom carveouts. Did not read further analysis
Amazing that it is only a problem now that conservatives are in the majority on the court. The liberals that were on the court never once attended any partisan functions in their entire time on the bench. Did many of you ever think that just because you disagree with someone it doesn't make them wrong and you right every time? I find it astonishing that since some of you disagree politically that it makes the opposite side evil and only self-serving. If we all would take a minute and examine the differencing viewpoints, we can still disagree, but it doesn't mean the other side is trying to destroy this country.
