With respect, I have to ask whether you actually read the opinions as they are issued? If you’ve been reading them, you will conclude that this court is the most predictable in at least a decade or so. In particular.... which justice might you have expected to vote the other way, and which of their opinions/concurrences/dissents led you to believe that they would vote that way?
Sure we could’ve guessed how this one would go (though I am pleased there wasn’t even one dissenter, even though this would be blatantly unconstitutional but hey), but on other topics, as individuals, they’ve kind of been all over the place.
For example? Can you name a case in which this court has ruled differently than you would have expected from the justices’ previous opinions/dissents/concurrences? There are a few, but compared with some previous courts this one has been a model of consistency.
Yes, a good step in the right direction.
Weird court. Completely unpredictable, and that is not a good thing.
They seem to be sticking to cases that have a SCotUS Precedent. or a closely related case. not really taking any risk....
With respect, I have to ask whether you actually read the opinions as they are issued? If you’ve been reading them, you will conclude that this court is the most predictable in at least a decade or so. In particular.... which justice might you have expected to vote the other way, and which of their opinions/concurrences/dissents led you to believe that they would vote that way?
Also how I interpreted that.
Sure we could’ve guessed how this one would go (though I am pleased there wasn’t even one dissenter, even though this would be blatantly unconstitutional but hey), but on other topics, as individuals, they’ve kind of been all over the place.
For example? Can you name a case in which this court has ruled differently than you would have expected from the justices’ previous opinions/dissents/concurrences? There are a few, but compared with some previous courts this one has been a model of consistency.