This is an alt-fact. Throughout the Obama administration, at least, the court usually fell along party lines.
Why is this an Alt fact. It is the truth.
Present evidence that this is the case.
(Because I’m pretty sure that you are incorrect)
Just did a quick check, and yeah, you are incorrect.
You can check here and look at all the rulings, and see that most are unanimous.
In 2016, for instance, they’ve got 12 rulings, 10 of which seem to be unanimous.
Another brick in the “wall”?
For those not clicking through, it’s a non-binding resolution, so it doesn’t actually do anything from a legislative perspective. It’s more a signal of intent.
Full text of the resolution:
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001(1) , in particular Article 1(4) thereof (‘the reciprocity mechanism’),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 12 April 2016 entitled ‘State of play and the possible ways forward as regards the situation of non-reciprocity with certain third countries in the area of visa policy’ (COM(2016)0221),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 13 July 2016 entitled ‘State of play and the possible ways forward as regards the situation of non-reciprocity with certain third countries in the area of visa policy (Follow-up of the Communication of 12 April)’ (COM(2016)0481),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 21 December 2016 entitled ‘State of play and the possible ways forward as regards the situation of non-reciprocity with certain third countries in the area of visa policy (Follow-up to the Communication of 12 April)’ (COM(2016)0816),
– having regard to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 80, 265 and 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
– having regard to its debate on ‘Obligations in the field of visa reciprocity’ held on 14 December 2016 in Strasbourg,
– having regard to the question to the Commission on obligations of the Commission in the field of visa reciprocity in accordance with Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (O‑000142/2016 – B8‑1820/2016),
– having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,
– having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the criterion of visa reciprocity as one of the criteria guiding the EU’s visa policy is generally understood to imply that EU citizens should be subject to the same conditions when travelling to a third country as the nationals of that third country are when travelling to the EU;
B. whereas the purpose of the visa reciprocity mechanism is to achieve such visa reciprocity; whereas the EU’s visa policy prohibits individual Member States from introducing a visa requirement for nationals of a third country if this country is listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (countries whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement for short stays);
C. whereas the reciprocity mechanism was revised in 2013, with Parliament acting as co-legislator, as it needed to be adapted in the light of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on secondary legal bases and ‘to provide for a Union response as an act of solidarity, if a third country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 applies a visa requirement for nationals of at least one Member State’ (Recital 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013);
D. whereas the reciprocity mechanism sets out a procedure starting with a situation of non-reciprocity with precise timeframes and actions to be taken with a view to ending a situation of non-reciprocity; whereas its inherent logic entails measures of increasing severity vis-à-vis the third country concerned, including ultimately the suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for all nationals of the third country concerned (‘second phase of application of the reciprocity mechanism’);
E. whereas ‘in order to ensure the adequate involvement of the European Parliament and of the Council in the second phase of application of the reciprocity mechanism, given the particularly sensitive political nature of the suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for all the nationals of a third country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and its horizontal implications for the Member States, the Schengen associated countries and the Union itself, in particular for their external relations and for the overall functioning of the Schengen area, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union [was] delegated to the Commission in respect of certain elements of the reciprocity mechanism’ including the suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for all nationals of the third country concerned;
F. whereas ‘the European Parliament or the Council may decide to revoke the delegation’ (Article 290(2)(a) TFEU);
G. whereas a delegated act ‘may enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the European Parliament or the Council within a period set by the legislative act’ (Article 290(2)(b) TFEU);
H. whereas the Commission contested the choice of delegated acts in the second phase of application of the reciprocity mechanism before the Court of Justice of the European Union, and whereas the Court considered however the choice of the legislator to be correct (Case C-88/14);
I. whereas the mechanism thereby clearly assigns obligations and responsibilities to Parliament and the Council and to the Commission in the different phases of the reciprocity mechanism;
-
Considers the Commission to be legally obliged to adopt a delegated act – temporarily suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of third countries which have not lifted the visa requirement for citizens of certain Member States – within a period of 24 months from the date of publication of the notifications in this regard, which ended on 12 April 2016;
-
Calls on the Commission, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, to adopt the required delegated act within two months from the date of adoption of this resolution at the latest;
-
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the European Council, the Council and the national parliaments.
Man, that would suck if implemented. I was hoping to visit Germany this summer after not having been since less than two months before the Berlin Wall fell.
If it goes through at least you can still get a visa. Tourist/visitor visas aren’t a ban like what we’re doing really.
For symmetry’s sake, don’t go back until after the Mexico Wall falls.
Oh hey, this is a great illustration of the dangers of seeing the world as being full of “facts” and “lies” with no space between them!
Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, but the reason most unanimous decisions are unanimous is because their outcome was never in any doubt. They’re not “big” cases.
But rulings have been coming out as 5-4 votes along partisan lines more than they used to. (Which is another way of saying we see less 6-3 and 7-2 decisions.) John Roberts wanted to change this (or at least he claims he did) but was largely unsuccessful.
So, it is simultaneously true that most cases are decided in a nonpartisan fashion by 9-0 votes and that the Court has been behaving in a more recognizably partisan manner now than it did n the past.
Really you have data to back this up?
Yeah, I found this old Hofstra Law Review article after a bit of digging. Check out the graphs on page 8! (But note that it was written shortly after an unusually 5-4 heavy year.)
The trend of 5-4 blocking around controversial decisions has been going on for decades, but the law has a long memory, and there was a time when, for whatever reason, the Justices came to more 6-3 and 7-2 decisions.
But some of this may be due to how partial dissents or concurrences are “scored” for bookkeeping purposes. You used to see a lot less of those!
This was a case where the outcome was in doubt, so a 7-1 split is very noticable.
I wonder if the SC is worried about democracy themselves- ultimately, bipartisanship is necessary for the courts to survive, and somewhere deep down I believe the justices know that- which is why their tendency would be to try to be a check on an overpowerful party.
If NC is forced to hold a special legislative election this year- then gerrymandering will have clearly been ruled unconstitutional.
Thanks for finding it I was curious to see what the data was from earlier. Unfortunately for you, the data doesn’t support your argument. Looking at Figures 1 and 2 from the Law review article (page 8). I can’t easily paste the graph so I’ll describe it. From 1900 to about 1955 the percentage of Supreme Court case decide by a “5-4” decision rose from 5% to around 20%. From 1955 to 1990 the 5-year rolling average varied from between 16% to 28%.
So what is the percentage today? Our friends at Scotusblog put out a detailed statisical analysis of all the Supreme Court decisions. Looking at their breakdown of their most recent term.
We find that in 2015/16 term there were exactly four 5-4 decision or 5% of the case making the last term one of the least divisive terms in the last 100 odd years. Looking at the dozen year since SCOTUSblog has been publishing statistic we find that 20% of the case during the last 4 years of Bush 43 were 5-4 and the same 20% figure applied to the 8 years of the Obama presidency. This is actually at the low end of the 1955-1990 range.
So if your argument is compared to 100 years ago, ya I guess it is a little more polarized, but in our lifetime no it isn’t.
But 5-4 decisions is only one measure of polarization. The Scotusblog also provides the number of different combination and rather than the popular conception of 4 liberal vs 4 conservatives with Kennedy being the swing vote. We find that on average there were 6 different combinations of 5-4 votes. So for example, Justice Roberts joined the liberal to find ACA constitutional. This is why despite holding a 5-4 majority on the court for most of the century. Conservative have only won 42% of all 5-4 case and only 75% of 5-4 case were decided on partisan lines, it is not uncommon for folks to switch even in highly contested cases.
So overall only 15% (20% * 75%) of Scotus case were decided on a party line vote. Since Roberts has taken over the court has become even more united. Each term under Roberts between 40-65% have been decided unanimously.
Most elements of American society have become more partisan over recent years. The Supreme court is one institution where it hasn’t happened.
This is correct, I was wrong. For every news-worthy case that’s decided along party lines, there’s a dozen or more trivial cases that go 9-0.
Already in 2017, CoreCivic is up about 30 per cent; Geo - which is also the largest private prison company in Australia - has gained about 20 per cent.
“We are strongly opposed to the Trump administration policies on immigration,” said Carl Takei, staff lawyer for the national prison project at the American Civil Liberties Union . “But those policies are great for these companies.”
It was only last summer that their entire business model seemed to be in danger. The Obama administration decided to phase out their use by the federal Bureau of Prisons, and the companies’ shares plummeted.
But Trump’s election victory almost instantly pulled the two companies out of their slump. That was only the beginning.
[quote]Submitting false information on a voter registration form is a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison.
However, Mr Bannon did not vote in Florida which is likely to lower the odds of the investigation against him coming to prosecution.[/quote]
One can hope.
I thought I heard on that story that there were several in the Trump organization that had registered in Florida as well. This makes me wonder what the purpose of that was.
Is there a clause buried somewhere in the constitution where Trump can be guillotined?
it’s entirely tax avoidance. Florida taxes much less than New York or California, especially if you are rich.
Wasn’t Coulter in a similar situation a few years back?